Christian Cyberpunks
sHrOom
Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
in MY bible.....
What is it with all these Christian-haters in Cyberspace. Yes, I'll
admit, there is corruption in "The Church" but we must remember that
EVERYONE sins. Christian means "One who follows Christ." When a priest
rapes some kid, or dips in to the collection plate, he is disobeying
Christ. Don't blame God/Jesus for stuff like that that happenes, they
didn't do it, the priest did...
Many people don't want to follow Christ because they say he was a wimp,
and let people beat him up and spit on them. Nothing is farther from the
truth! How more (Cyber)punk can you get than telling all the corrupt
rules that they're gonna burn in hell? That was like treason back then!
Jesus is awesome, and it's only because He loves you that you are living
right now..
Alright, you can flame me now, but we know who's gonna get flamed in The End..
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Christopher Loch | ARTICLE 19 of the United Nations Universal %
Editor of ARTICLE 19 | Declaration of Human Rights states: "Every- %
shr...@theporch.raider.net | one has the right to freedom of expression; %
{PGP 2.3 key availiable} | this right includes freedom to hold opinions %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % %| without intereference, and to seek, recieve %
The views expressed above | and impart information and ideas, through any%
ARE those of ARTICLE 19.. | media, regardless of frontiers." %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Robert Mah
> Who says that Christians don't believe that information should be free..
> Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
> in MY bible.....
That isn't the only definition of what a CP is. And just because a
reference does not state a position does not indicate that it does not
hold it.
And aside from your lack of logic, Christianity does in fact espouse the
idea that knowledge is a Really Bad Thing (tm). In Genesis, for example,
God states, "Of everty tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thous shalt not eat of it: for
in the day that thou eastest therof thou shalt surely die."
Clearly showing that the God of the Christian religion does not approve of
the free disemination of knowledge. Even of the most basic sort.
> What is it with all these Christian-haters in Cyberspace. Yes, I'll
> admit, there is corruption in "The Church" but we must remember that
> EVERYONE sins. Christian means "One who follows Christ." When a priest
Even God.
Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
5. He lied (see above, Adam and Eve did not die they ate of tree of
knowledge).
6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
To sum up, not the kind of God I'd want to worship. If I beleived in
Invisble Pink Unicorns or Little Blue Men That Live In Large Mushrooms.
> Many people don't want to follow Christ because they say he was a wimp,
> and let people beat him up and spit on them. Nothing is farther from the
> truth! How more (Cyber)punk can you get than telling all the corrupt
> rules that they're gonna burn in hell? That was like treason back then!
Lest you think I'm some sort of evil and twisted person, I think that
most (but not the obey the state part) of Christ's philosophy is pretty
much on the mark and would would lead to a better world if everyone
followed them.
> Jesus is awesome, and it's only because He loves you that you are living
> right now..
Is "He" God or is "He" Christ? And is "Christ" divine? If so, is he a
diety? If so, is Christianity a polythiastic religion? Should Christians
care if it is?
> Alright, you can flame me now, but we know who's gonna get flamed in
> The End..
Christ does not, as far as I can recall, mention Hell or eternal damnation
(some Christian sects, true to the word do not beleive in a Satan or hell).
That is a mythology that, if I recall correctly, is adapted from the Roman
adaptation of the Egyptian mythos (alternate religions were very big during
the first few centuries after Christ).
Cheers,
Rob
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
Sourcerer
: Who says that Christians don't believe that information should be free..
Is any information available or true unless it comes from your God?
We aren't talking about "The Church". We are talking about Christians
claiming to be cyberpunks.
: Many people don't want to follow Christ because they say he was a wimp,
Many people don't follow anyone.
Cyberpunks don't follow anyone, wimp or not. Christians follow Christ.
Therefore Christians can't be cyberpunks.
: How more (Cyber)punk can you get than telling all the corrupt
: rules that they're gonna burn in hell? That was like treason back then!
So I guess all the street preachers are the real cyberpunks. I hereby
tell all the corrupt rulers they're gonna burn in hell. Does that make me
a cyberpunk?
Explain to me why you, a declared Christian, would denigrate your God, the
King of the Universe and Creator of all that is seen and unseen, by
calling him a punk?
Aren't you satisfied that he's God the Father Almighty? What more do you
want?
And if you can't, I urge any other Christian reading this to explain it.
: Jesus is awesome,
Nah, not according to you. According to you Jesus is a punk -- unless you
think being a punk is totally awesome, dude.
: Alright, you can flame me now, but we know who's gonna get flamed in The End..
Yeah, right. That information is free. I'm not gonna flame you. Just
answer my questions.
shroom, eh? Right. Ego transcendence scare the shit out of you?
--
(}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}})__
({{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ At the back of the blue bus{{} /(**)\
({dje...@telerama.LM.com{{{{{{{Sourcerer{{{{{{{{{{) \../
(}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}) ||
Joshua Abdulla
>Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
>in MY bible.....
Try the thousands of wasps all over the US that feel certain books should be
banned because of their "immoral content"?? These people site the BIBLE
references to back their claims.
Don't use the BIBLE to back your claims, the entire thing makes no sense.
Half of it says hit the guy back, the other half says get hit again...
>Jesus is awesome, and it's only because He loves you that you are living
>right now..
Bullshit. How can you honestly believe this? How did you gain this
knowledge? What proof do you have of this? Other than your Bible, your
ownly source is other living humans, and how would they know? Don't
give me that faith crap either..
>Alright, you can flame me now, but we know who's gonna get flamed in The
>End..
Another assumption based on no fact...
***********************************************
* Joshua Abdulla * EMail: jabd...@delphi.com *
*---------------------------------------------*
* "The time has come, the Walrus said..." *
***********************************************
Paul Mather
>
> Alright, you can flame me now, but we know who's gonna get flamed in The
> End..
>
>
>
>
> % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
> Christopher Loch | ARTICLE 19 of the United Nations Universal %
> Editor of ARTICLE 19 | Declaration of Human Rights states: "Every- %
> shr...@theporch.raider.net | one has the right to freedom of expression; %
> {PGP 2.3 key availiable} | this right includes freedom to hold opinions %
> % % % % % % % % % % % % % %| without intereference, and to seek, recieve %
> The views expressed above | and impart information and ideas, through any%
> ARE those of ARTICLE 19.. | media, regardless of frontiers." %
> % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Oooh, I hope you're joking. Most of the Christians I know are the first to
admit they don't know who's going to go to hell or not. If you meant that
remark seriously it sure make you sound like a bit of a jerk, doesn't it?
"Every soul is worth saving, at least to some old priest, but not every soul
is worth buying. So you can take the offer as a compliment." - W.S.
Burroughs
Bruce Arthu Bendler
on Sunday. I just dont see how too continue this debate without it faling into
a flame-fest -0- Allah.
I would like to clarify to all, that when I say "real Cpunk" its
purely used to denote a fictional person, who embodies what I believe I want
to be, I dont mean real cpunk as in what on eats or listens too. Also, this
person does not have to wear shades leather etc.... Brain is all the dress a
"real cpunk" needs.
I wont post my response to shrooms spoutings since I know that the next
fourteen articles in this thread are the same thing... Oh by the way, why
ShRoOm as the name? You cant travel far on your trip, when you have matching
Jesus luggage, or any (insert various messiac figure here) mathcing luggage.
Sourcerer
: > Who says that Christians don't believe that information should be free..
: > Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
: > in MY bible.....
Can you say "ban"? Can you say "censor"? The basic social activity of
some kinds of Christians (one might say their *only* social activity) is
attempting to ban, censor and outlaw everything they consider bad, evil
and immoral.
This behavior and the mindset that makes it possible is antithetical to
cyberpunk. You cannot be a cyberpunk and at the same time agree that
certain information should be banned, censored or outlawed.
(edits)
: Cheers,
: Rob
: --
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
: One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
Robert, you've fallen into the trap of discussing God and religion. You
know they can keep *that* up forever. That's all they do. The subject
is: can Christians be cyberpunks?
Robert Mah
>Robert, you've fallen into the trap of discussing God and religion. You
>know they can keep *that* up forever. That's all they do. The subject
>is: can Christians be cyberpunks?
I can keep it up for a long time too. In fact, it's one of my fave passtimes.
I have decided however, this time, I will not debate the existance of God,
but rather his fitness to be worshiped. I have found that this usually
throws them for a loop.
Too bad (or maybe it's good) but it looks like the Xtians have fled in
disbeleif and horror. I dare anyone to justify the actions that God has
taken in the past that I outlined in my last post. Let the flames begin!
Stryder
[stuff deleted for brevity]
If Jesus (tm) was a jew, how come he had a spanish name?
>Cheers,
>Rob
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
>One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| "Woods and crags know how to keep a | |
| dignified silence with you." | Stryder |
| | |
| Nietzsche, _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Geldard
>[stuff deleted for brevity]
>If Jesus (tm) was a jew, how come he had a spanish name?
All through the centuries, theologians and biblical scholars have
been plagued by problems of translation - or, to be more precise,
mistranslation. By the time a name, a word, a phrase, a sentence,
a statement passed from spoken Hebrew or Aramaic, to written Greek,
to written Latin, and then to one or another modern language, it
has often become utterly divorced from its original meaning.
"Jesus" is not a Judaic name but Greek. Among his own people,
Jesus would have been called Yeshua ben Yusef (Joshua son of Joseph).
Yeshua was almost certainly not "of Nazareth". An overwhelming body
of evidence indicates that Nazareth did not exist in biblical times.
The town is unlikely to have appeared before the third century (the
time at which the gospels were being written). "Jesus of Nazareth"
is, in fact, a mistranslation of the original Greek phrase "Jesus
the Nazarean."
This does not denote any specific locality, but refers to his
membership in a specific Jewish sect of the time which had a certain
religious and political orientation. Jesus/Yeshua had, of course, no
idea that he was creating a new religion. He was a devout Jew who
worked and preached within the context of established Judaic tradition.
TTFN - Ian
--
+---------------------------------------------------+
| | FidoNet 2:254/151 |
| Ian Geldard | Internet igel...@sound.demon.co.uk |
| | CIS 70734,426 |
| | IGC igeldard@gn |
+---------------------------------------------------+
David McIntyre
>> What is it with all these Christian-haters in Cyberspace. Yes, I'll
>> admit, there is corruption in "The Church" but we must remember that
>> EVERYONE sins. Christian means "One who follows Christ." When a priest
>Even God.
>Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
>a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
>1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
> Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
them to straighten out before He killed them.
>2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
Well, start searching through the Bible and let us know when you come up with
something.
>3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
> was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
> famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
> river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
None of this was pollution. It was all retribution for the evils of man. I'm
sure God didn't kill a bunch of honest little fishies to get back at some bad
men. :)
>4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
You're right. Not a sin. It was with Mary's consent.
>5. He lied (see above, Adam and Eve did not die they ate of tree of
> knowledge).
They did die ... eventually. If they had not eaten the forbidden fruit, they
would never have died.
>6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
Not sexist. Women just have different and separate roles than men.
>7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
He virtually eliminated the "chosen people" in the New Testament, when anyone
could find His glory.
>To sum up, not the kind of God I'd want to worship. If I beleived in
>Invisble Pink Unicorns or Little Blue Men That Live In Large Mushrooms.
He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
--
xyzzy@ | Opinions expressed | I'm not half as think | More fun than I
imagen.com | are entirely my own | as confused you am. | should be having
Andie Foster
>
> >1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
> > Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>
> Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
> them to straighten out before He killed them.
Not a sin, eh? Doesn't there exist, among the 10 commandments, one which
reads, "thou shalt not kill"? And since the 10 commandments dictate what
is sin and what isn't...well, you use your logic. But I suppose the Great
Almighty is exempt from his laws (the old "do as I say, not as I do" adage)
And isn't it kind of less-than-all-loving to unleash some kind of
vengeance on "affronts to his work"?
> >4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
>
> You're right. Not a sin. It was with Mary's consent.
Wow, great! So that's how you get off the "thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's spouse" rap? (and even though Mary wasn't actually married to
Joseph, they were engaged and in traditional times, that's as good as
marriage)
Seems to me, it comes down to problems of semantics. The Christians
seem to define their words to apply to two different sets of standards--if
it's an arguement for them, well, then, those words work just fine. If
it's an arguement against them, well, those words never apply to god. I
guess god takes the ultimate employee discount.
Andie
--
oOo
The world is text. Nothing stands behind.
There is no escape. Here in the prisonhouse
of language. -- Vincent Leitch
Hugh MacMullan IV
>In article <2f0i9p$7...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>> What is it with all these Christian-haters in Cyberspace. Yes, I'll
>>> admit, there is corruption in "The Church" but we must remember that
>>> EVERYONE sins. Christian means "One who follows Christ." When a priest
>
>>Even God.
>
>>Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
>>a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
>
>> Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>
>Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
>them to straighten out before He killed them.
Justification for killing ones children. Cool. "Better clean your
room, son, or I'll have to kill you." Isn't there something called
the Ten Commandments? Though shalt not kill?
>>2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
>
>Well, start searching through the Bible and let us know when you come up with
>something.
He tortures me every day by allowing his followers to behave as they
do. Why would God, the Almighty, adopt a bunch of idiots to act as
his disciples? Kinda makes you wonder....
>>3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
>> was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
>> famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
>> river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
>
>None of this was pollution. It was all retribution for the evils of man. I'm
>sure God didn't kill a bunch of honest little fishies to get back at some bad
>men. :)
But why would God (the all-powerful) need to exact retribution?
Isn't that kind of petty? And I thought that The Fiery Pit was
God's retribution -- why would he need anything more than eternal
Damnation?
>>4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
>
>You're right. Not a sin. It was with Mary's consent.
Uhhh...wasn't Mary married, or about to get married, to Joseph?
Sounds sinful to me. At least mighty scandalous for God hisself.
>>5. He lied (see above, Adam and Eve did not die they ate of tree of
>> knowledge).
>
>They did die ... eventually. If they had not eaten the forbidden fruit, they
>would never have died.
>
>>6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
>
>Not sexist. Women just have different and separate roles than men.
"Different and separate" = sexist, you idiot. This is the most
disgusting aspect of Christian thought in my mind, and is the crux
of the incompatibility between Christian and Cyberpunk thought. If
any definition of Cyberpunk holds true, it's that there are no
pre-determined roles for anyone. You've gotta push the boundaries,
not just stay in your mold. Christianity -- and most other
religions -- breeds a feeling of superiority, and therefor contempt.
It also stagnates, through the idea that life on earth is only in
preparation for the real party: Afterlife. CP and Xtianity are
completely incompatible.
>>7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
>
>He virtually eliminated the "chosen people" in the New Testament, when anyone
>could find His glory.
Ummm...what exactly do you mean here? Ahh never mind, I don't
really want to hear it.
>>To sum up, not the kind of God I'd want to worship. If I beleived in
>>Invisble Pink Unicorns or Little Blue Men That Live In Large Mushrooms.
>
>He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
>modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
What Cyberpunk ideals are these? And are you modifying them to YOUR
needs (definitely CP) or to those of your God? I would suggest that
you really think about who controls your life: God, Jesus and the
Holy Ghost or Me, Myself and I (the true Holy Trinity). If anything
or anyone but you control your life, and you embrace it/them, you
ain't no CP in my book.
But who am I to say, I'm just:
----Hugh
David McIntyre
>>He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
>>modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
>What Cyberpunk ideals are these? And are you modifying them to YOUR
>needs (definitely CP) or to those of your God? I would suggest that
>you really think about who controls your life: God, Jesus and the
>Holy Ghost or Me, Myself and I (the true Holy Trinity). If anything
>or anyone but you control your life, and you embrace it/them, you
>ain't no CP in my book.
Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to argue the finer points of the Bible. I
could, but it would take too much of my time. I will say, however, that
Cyberpunk is an individualistic movement. Whatever you feel is best for you
is what you do. I feel that certain elements of Christianity and religion
fulfill certain aspects of my life. Then again, there are other aspects of
Christianity and religion that I feel are unnecessary and outmoded. I leave
these parts out of my life. No, I'm not everybody's idea of a "good little
Christian". A look at my .newsrc would show this. Here's a hint: I have no
religious newsgroups selected (unless you count kibology), and I check on a
few groups relating to altered states of consciousness.
Just remember: You've got to believe in something, or you'll fall for anything.
Sourcerer
: In article <2f0i9p$7...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
: >2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
: Well, start searching through the Bible and let us know when you come up with
: something.
Job.
Hugh MacMullan IV
First off: better get in the mood to back up your statements or
shut up.
Second: as you say, CP is very individualistic. If you want to use
aspects of the Xtian way in your life, feel free. As you say though
I don't consider you much of a Xtian at all. For example: I
consider it morally wrong to kill. So do Xtians (except for
criminals who need to be eliminated from society). This similarity
doesn't make me a Xtian, just like my worship of trees doesn't make
me a Druid. As the Xtians say it all comes down to this: Do you
believe in God the father, maker of Heaven & Earth...etc...and Jesus
too...? Do you believe that these deities are all-powerful and
all-knowing? That Jesus (the man) was truly the son of God? If you
answer yes to all of these, you are a Xtian in my mind.
The problem is, if you are a Xtian as defined above, you believe in
something that cannot be proven or evidenced in any way. Most CP's
would agree that this is non-CP behavior. An aspect of CPism is its
grounding in reality and modern science. Anyone who is stupid
enough to believe that some con-artist named Jesus 2000 years ago
was the SON OF GOD deserves what they get.
So why do you believe? Ensnared by the great religious paradox of
"faith" and "reward"? Reminds me of McCarthyism (sp).
Finally: Morals are great, in fact a necessity for my own sanity,
and a functioning society. For those not creative, wise and
motivated enough, religion is a good way to establish a moral norm.
So is law. If you are CP (as you say), you wouldn't take anything
on "blind faith", but would question everything until it is PROVEN
true or false.
The CP Code(tm) is a personal moral code, not one mandated by "god".
----Hugh
Robert Mah
> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
>>a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
>>1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>> Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
>them to straighten out before He killed them.
What's not a sin? Killing big bunches of people? Or killing one person
at a time?
Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill". Not, 'thou shalt not kill nice people.'
Not, 'thout shall not kill innocents.' Not, 'thou shalt not kill without
warning.' "Thou shalt NOT KILL" (emphasis mine). Simple, straitforward,
and very, very difficult to misinterpret (except by the mentally disturbed).
BTW, was EVERY first born son an "affront to His work?" He killed
children. One day old male babies who didn't even have a chance to dirty
their diapers. How can this be excused?
Follow this if you can.
1. God has killed people.
2. Killing people is a sin.
3. Therefore, God has sinned.
Got it?
>>3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
>> was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
>> famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
>> river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
> None of this was pollution. It was all retribution for the evils of man.
> I'm sure God didn't kill a bunch of honest little fishies to get back at
> some bad men. :)
First, I don't care WHY God polluted. Fact is, he did. Read the Bible.
Exodus 7:21, "And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank,
and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was
blood throughout all the land of Egypt."
God destroyed the most important ecosystem in north-east Africa to "get
back at some bad men". Conclusion: God has polluted.
>>4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
>You're right. Not a sin. It was with Mary's consent.
So, if the woman consents to bearing a child without marriage, it's OK?
Tell it to the Pope or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
>>5. He lied (see above, Adam and Eve did not die they ate of tree of
>> knowledge).
> They did die ... eventually. If they had not eaten the forbidden fruit,
> they would never have died.
You deleted my quote. God says in Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." ^^^^^^^^^^
They ate. They did not die that day. God lied.
>> 6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
> Not sexist. Women just have different and separate roles than men.
Did you take an English class in High School? Take a look at definition #2
from the American Heritage Dictionary:
sexism -- n. 1. Discrimination based on sex, esp. discrimination against
women. 2. Attitudes or conditions that promote streotyping of social
roles based on gender. -- sexist adj. & n.
Conclusion: God is a sexist.
>>7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
> He virtually eliminated the "chosen people" in the New Testament, when
> anyone could find His glory.
So he lied to the Jews, is that it? Or did Christ lie? One or the other
sure did.
> He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
> modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
Personally, I could care less if you call yourself CP or not. I'll just
call you "brain dead" until you can come up with better arguments.
Try again, but try to use some reason and perhaps even a semblence
of logic.
BTW, Try reading the Bible, it may help.
Robert Mah
>Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to argue the finer points of the Bible.
More like you know you'd lose. The Bible is so chock full of
contradictions and pure BS that it makes a me just weep for joy at the
thought of smashing mystical-spiritual-invisble-pink-unicorn-bullshit
beleivers with thier own doctrine, dogma and holy words.
> Then again, there are other aspects of Christianity and religion that I
> feel are unnecessary and outmoded. I leave these parts out of my life.
Ohhhh...so now you say that you're wise enough to discern which of God's
wishes are valid or not. That you are smart enough to second guess what
God was thinking and decide for yourself if you should obey rule #641 but
not rule #195. I sure wish I was that smart.
> No, I'm not everybody's idea of a "good little Christian". A look at my
> .newsrc would show this. Here's a hint: I have no religious newsgroups
> selected (unless you count kibology), and I check on a few groups
> relating to altered states of consciousness.
Then I suggest you read the Bible with an open mind and decide for
yourself if God is someone/something that is fit for worship by decent
people with even a smattering of morality and good taste.
It's not easy. It means abandoning everything that's been hammered into
your skull by the culture you grew up in. It means reading each
chapter and verse without drawing upon the analysis of other _people_ and
making your own critical judgements.
Read it afresh. You'll discover that God is cruel, callous, uncaring and
vengeful. He is far from perfect, omniscent, or omnipotent. In short,
he's not much of a God.
> Just remember: You've got to believe in something, or you'll fall for
> anything. >--
You already fell for it, you just don't know it. Believe in yourself.
Have faith in your own mind, your own "spirit". If you can't believe
yourself, who can you beleive?
Gregg Jaeger
>xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
>> >1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>> > Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>> Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
>> them to straighten out before He killed them.
>Not a sin, eh? Doesn't there exist, among the 10 commandments, one which
>reads, "thou shalt not kill"? And since the 10 commandments dictate what
>is sin and what isn't...well, you use your logic. But I suppose the Great
>Almighty is exempt from his laws (the old "do as I say, not as I do" adage)
No, there doesn't. Only one that says "Thou shall not *murder*".
Unfortunately the translation process has distorted the rules.
>And isn't it kind of less-than-all-loving to unleash some kind of
>vengeance on "affronts to his work"?
Everyone dies someday and somehow. God just likes to give natural
selection a little extra *oomph* from time to time.
Gregg
p.s. who's *not* a Christian.
Gregg Jaeger
>xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
>>Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to argue the finer points of the Bible.
>More like you know you'd lose. The Bible is so chock full of
>contradictions and pure BS that it makes a me just weep for joy at the
>thought of smashing mystical-spiritual-invisble-pink-unicorn-bullshit
>beleivers with thier own doctrine, dogma and holy words.
Well, yes.
>Then I suggest you read the Bible with an open mind and decide for
>yourself if God is someone/something that is fit for worship by decent
>people with even a smattering of morality and good taste.
[...]
>Read it afresh. You'll discover that God is cruel, callous, uncaring and
>vengeful. He is far from perfect, omniscent, or omnipotent. In short,
>he's not much of a God.
It's pretty tough to read afresh without having being able to read
Hebrew, Greek, etc.
Gregg
Donna Miller
He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
Mr. xyzzy, I will probably get flamed into next week for this, but have you run
into a book called the Handmaids Tale by Margarette Atwood? Though a bit on the
unlikely side the book does give one pause especially when the attitude you
seem to have about sex roles is coming from a "cyberpunk".
pause.
As a Christian woman, I do know my role as a woman, but as a cyberpunk enthus-
iast, I do not accept it nor do I want it.
tronic freedom.
To say that women have their place or that anyone that does not follow
mainstream culture is evil is very counteractive to this freedom.
Personally, I think that whether a cyberpunk is Christian or not is mean-
ingless since one is a faith one follows and the other is a subculture. A
human being is a complex organism, not every belief of a Christian is
necessarily going to go along with their Christian beliefs.
Fundamentalists on the other hand, IMHO they all should be neutered so they
do not make more fundamentalists :-).
ps. forgive me if this file comes out scrogged. My vi(evil) editor idoes no
not work well with my present os
Sourcerer
: xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
: >In article <2f4vmd$b...@morrow.stanford.edu> AS....@forsythe.stanford.edu (Hugh MacMullan IV) writes:
: >
: >>>He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
: >>>modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
: >
: >>What Cyberpunk ideals are these? And are you modifying them to YOUR
: >>needs (definitely CP) or to those of your God? I would suggest that
So far the Christians appeal to cyberpunk definitions which allow them to
be both Christians and cyberpunks, but none of them tell us what these cp
ideals are. So cyberpunk extols individuality...so does Rush Limbaugh,
Pat Buchannan, Dan Quayle, and Ronald Reagan.
: >>you really think about who controls your life: God, Jesus and the
: >>Holy Ghost or Me, Myself and I (the true Holy Trinity). If anything
: >>or anyone but you control your life, and you embrace it/them, you
: >>ain't no CP in my book: >
Is it possible for a cp to worship anyone or anything? That's the question.
If the answer is no, then no deist of any persuasion can be cp. Is the
concept of "worship" (in the religious sense) even conceivable in cp terms?
^^^^^^^^^^^
: >is what you do. I feel that certain elements of Christianity and religion
: >fulfill certain aspects of my life. Then again, there are other aspects of
: >Christianity and religion that I feel are unnecessary and outmoded. I leave
: >these parts out of my life. No, I'm not everybody's idea of a "good little
: >Christian".
Do you worship Jesus Christ? If you do then what more do you need?
You've got the creator of the universe, who knows all and controls all.
Jonas Flygare
Here, take this dark robe and this bell. Now, keep on ringing the
bell, and remember to greet any and all people you meet out on the
wire with "UNCLEAN!"
:) for the humor impaired.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Flygare, + You can be young only once,
Wherever I go + but you can be immature forever.
There I am... + /net.rule.of.life.#.1
Jason Schmidt
>I can keep it up for a long time too. In fact, it's one of my fave passtimes.
>I have decided however, this time, I will not debate the existance of God,
>but rather his fitness to be worshiped. I have found that this usually
>throws them for a loop.
>Too bad (or maybe it's good) but it looks like the Xtians have fled in
>disbeleif and horror. I dare anyone to justify the actions that God has
>taken in the past that I outlined in my last post. Let the flames begin!
Sorry, I haven't had much time recently.
As has been said in the past, actions taken by Christians are not
necessarily actions taken by God. If God were to censor things, you would not
have the freedom to question his existence, or his fitness to be worshipped.
This freedom is, IMHO the top reason for worshipping, closely followed by the
awesome ability which he has installed in us to do that questioning, and the
ability to do the worshipping :)
with Love,
Jason
--
================================================================
Jason Schmidt Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21
Guitarist for His Honor Help Room Staff - Iowa State University
opinions in this message are solely my own
Jason Schmidt
>: shr...@theporch.raider.net (sHrOom) writes:
>: > Who says that Christians don't believe that information should be free..
>: > Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
>: > in MY bible.....
>Can you say "ban"? Can you say "censor"? The basic social activity of
>some kinds of Christians (one might say their *only* social activity) is
some kinds, how unfortunately true.
>attempting to ban, censor and outlaw everything they consider bad, evil
>and immoral.
>This behavior and the mindset that makes it possible is antithetical to
>cyberpunk. You cannot be a cyberpunk and at the same time agree that
>certain information should be banned, censored or outlawed.
Well, how about material which tries to convince everyone that cyberpunk
activities should be banned? Do you mean 'certain information' to be something
more specific than 'any information' in this context?
>Robert, you've fallen into the trap of discussing God and religion. You
>know they can keep *that* up forever. That's all they do. The subject
>is: can Christians be cyberpunks?
*shrug* What would make it impossible for a Christian to be cyberpunk?
Since 'Cyberpunk' and 'Christian' have such loose definitions, it will be hard
to get people to agree on the issue. I suggest that instead of asking if
Cyberpunk and Christianity are compatible, try and figure out which
definitions of each are compatible with which definitions of the other.
I.E. if, for you, the definition of Christianity involves strict obedience to
an authority figure, and the definition of Cyberpunk involves rebellion
against authority, there's going to be a lot of conflict. However, if your
definition of Christianity involves only the belief that Christ came to save
you, and your definition of Cyberpunk involves only an interest in networked
computer technology, then there is no conflict.
Personally, I'm a Christian with a strong interest in the concepts of
Cyberspace :)
David McIntyre
> Not sexist. Women just have different and separate roles than men.
> He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
> modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
>Mr. xyzzy, I will probably get flamed into next week for this, but have you run
>into a book called the Handmaids Tale by Margarette Atwood? Though a bit on the
>unlikely side the book does give one pause especially when the attitude you
>seem to have about sex roles is coming from a "cyberpunk".
>pause.
Never read the book, but saw the movie. Rather disturbing view of the future.
It takes the idea of gender roles to the absolute extreme.
>As a Christian woman, I do know my role as a woman, but as a cyberpunk enthus-
>iast, I do not accept it nor do I want it.
>tronic freedom.
>To say that women have their place or that anyone that does not follow
>mainstream culture is evil is very counteractive to this freedom.
Seems like an interesting conclusionary statement. Please e-mail me the whole
thing when your editor is behaving.
>Personally, I think that whether a cyberpunk is Christian or not is mean-
>ingless since one is a faith one follows and the other is a subculture. A
>human being is a complex organism, not every belief of a Christian is
>necessarily going to go along with their Christian beliefs.
I agree with you here. I don't know if you were expecting flamage from me or
the others in the newsgroup.
>Fundamentalists on the other hand, IMHO they all should be neutered so they
>do not make more fundamentalists :-).
I'm not so sure about that. I don't agree with oppressing any ideals of
anybody, no matter if I agree with their views or not.
Robert Mah
> No, there doesn't. Only one that says "Thou shall not *murder*".
> Unfortunately the translation process has distorted the rules.
Every bigle I've seen uses "kill". Do you have an actual reference
backing up your claim? This, is a real question, and I'm truly intersted.
And later, in regards to reading the Bible with an open mind,
jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
> It's pretty tough to read afresh without having being able to read
> Hebrew, Greek, etc.
Well, that's true to a certain extent. However, there is no complete
Hebrew version of the Holy Bible, and even if there was, the point would
be mute.
You see, the Bible, translated to English, from Greek, in the forms that
are used today is the basis of modern Christian religions in the U.S.
Thus, these translations, for the vast majority of Christians forms the
basis and foundation of the knoledge about God's will.
We're not talking about Biblical scholars or Jesuits studying the
scriptures, we're talking about everyday practicing, saved by the light,
and reborn from darkness Christians.
Even if the translation is wrong, only new evidence to the contrary will
change the beleifs of the religion. And until this evidence is presented,
the current traditions stand.
Robert Mah
> Sorry, I haven't had much time recently.
That's OK. Holidays and all I suppose. In any case, welcome back -- and
don't take what I say too personally, OK? :-)
> As has been said in the past, actions taken by Christians are not
> necessarily actions taken by God. If God were to censor things, you would
> not have the freedom to question his existence, or his fitness to be
> worshipped.
God's actions are what I'd like to discuss. We can only discuss his Him
because Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knoledge of good and evil. We are
thus equiped to make judgements about good and evil.
> This freedom is, IMHO the top reason for worshipping, closely followed by
> the awesome ability which he has installed in us to do that questioning,
> and the ability to do the worshipping :)
We have this freedom, not because of God, but in spite of him. His
original will was that man (well Adam and Eve anyway) would NOT have this
freedom. He censored the most basic of knowledge and kept it from them.
After man gained this knowledge we were punished by God the landlord by
being forcabley evicted from Eden without due process and losing our
immortality to boot.
Gregg Jaeger
>jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>> No, there doesn't. Only one that says "Thou shall not *murder*".
>> Unfortunately the translation process has distorted the rules.
>Every bigle I've seen uses "kill". Do you have an actual reference
>backing up your claim? This, is a real question, and I'm truly intersted.
The actual reference is the text in Hebrew. I suggest asking a
religiously well-trained person capable of reading Hebrew. From
discussions with Hebrew readers I have become convinced that
"kill" is a mistranslation.
>And later, in regards to reading the Bible with an open mind,
>jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>> It's pretty tough to read afresh without having being able to read
>> Hebrew, Greek, etc.
>Well, that's true to a certain extent. However, there is no complete
>Hebrew version of the Holy Bible, and even if there was, the point would
>be mute.
The fact that there is no complete Hebrew version is irrelevant,
in that such portions that do exist clearly will not suffer from
the distortions inherent in any translation from one language
to another. Of course I refer to the OT here.
>You see, the Bible, translated to English, from Greek, in the forms that
>are used today is the basis of modern Christian religions in the U.S.
>Thus, these translations, for the vast majority of Christians forms the
>basis and foundation of the knoledge about God's will.
Clearly not a good basis, given the realities of translation and the
omnipresent political forces behind sanctioned translations.
>[...]
>Even if the translation is wrong, only new evidence to the contrary will
>change the beleifs of the religion. And until this evidence is presented,
>the current traditions stand.
Unfortunately this is so. The traditions have been formed, and people
are best at following officially sanctioned tranditions relatively
mindlessly.
Cheers,
Joao Pedro Silva
str...@access3.digex.net (Stryder) writes:
Jesus is a spanish name? Says who?
Better learn some things about language and word origins first!!
Further more: Jesus is not even a latin name! It's hebrew, alright!
Joao Pedro Silva (here's a latin name!)
Robert Mah
>> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>
>> If Jesus (tm) was a jew, how come he had a spanish name?
>Jesus is a spanish name? Says who?
>Better learn some things about language and word origins first!!
>Further more: Jesus is not even a latin name! It's hebrew, alright!
I didn't write that. And as someone else pointed out, Jesus is not a
Hebrew name.
Later,
Robert Mah
> The actual reference ["kill" vs "murder"] is the text in Hebrew. I suggest
> asking a religiously well-trained person capable of reading Hebrew. From
> discussions with Hebrew readers I have become convinced that "kill" is a
> mistranslation.
OK, but what text. Torah, Dead Sea Scrolls, or something else. I've
never really given much thought to the origins of the Old Testiment...
I assume each "book" (i.e. Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) may have a different
origin. Is this true?
Can you quickly shed any light on this matter?
Hugh MacMullan IV
>
>I see that you are trying hard to fuck up the Xian concepts of God, I must
>say that I like to see you lovely attempts to breal down the Bible in a
>flood of words. Not really Cyberpunk to do that, eh? You anarchists should
>know better, wanting to let people live in harmony without a goverment.
>Okay, I understand that God might be the last goverment you want to break
>down! But what is wrong with Xian Cyberpunks? Why do you fear them and don't
>want them to wander around in your little dreamland. Come on, I thought
>that punks were a little more social and accepting to other man's ideas than
>the average stupid small-minded citizen.
Who's trying to "break down the Bible in a flood of words"? Not me.
I actually enjoy the Bible as a piece of literature (a bit long) and
as a starting point for philosophical and spiritual thought and
learning. What I'm trying to break is the idea that Christians are
just like me, or that they are able to be Cyberpunk. They aren't.
They don't have the individual strength and will, the faith in
themselves instead of a phantom "Christ", or the wisdom to see past
Christian paradoxes and smoke & mirrors. I do consider myself very
accepting to others' ideas, but there is a difference between
wishing others to think what they want and wishing others to
constantly tell me what they think.
Finally: Why do I fear Christians? Because they have been the
scourge of civilization, culture, science, beauty, art, love, and
freedom for 2000 years.
----Hugh
Hugh MacMullan IV
>In <2f1ntu$f...@telerama.lm.com> dje...@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer) writes:
>>: shr...@theporch.raider.net (sHrOom) writes:
<<<<<<Lots of interesting stuff deleted>>>>>>
>>This behavior and the mindset that makes it possible is antithetical to
>>cyberpunk. You cannot be a cyberpunk and at the same time agree that
>>certain information should be banned, censored or outlawed.
>
> Well, how about material which tries to convince everyone that cyberpunk
>activities should be banned? Do you mean 'certain information' to be something
>more specific than 'any information' in this context?
Obviously not. All information should be freely accessible.
>>Robert, you've fallen into the trap of discussing God and religion. You
>>know they can keep *that* up forever. That's all they do. The subject
>>is: can Christians be cyberpunks?
>
> *shrug* What would make it impossible for a Christian to be cyberpunk?
>Since 'Cyberpunk' and 'Christian' have such loose definitions, it will be hard
>to get people to agree on the issue.
Since when does "Christian" have a loose definition? Christian:
one who believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and died on
the Cross to save mankind from its sins. What's loose about that?
It's also ridiculous, and that's why no self-respecting Cyberpunk
would be caught dead believing.
>I suggest that instead of asking if
>Cyberpunk and Christianity are compatible, try and figure out which
>definitions of each are compatible with which definitions of the other.
>I.E. if, for you, the definition of Christianity involves strict obedience to
>an authority figure, and the definition of Cyberpunk involves rebellion
>against authority, there's going to be a lot of conflict. However, if your
>definition of Christianity involves only the belief that Christ came to save
>you, and your definition of Cyberpunk involves only an interest in networked
>computer technology, then there is no conflict.
You are right in that definitions are the key. See above for the
definition of a Christian (I'm surprised you didn't know this one,
seeing as how you are one). I don't think you'll find anyone in
this group that really believes that a Cyberpunk is anyone who has
"an interest in computer technology." My grandmother is interested
in buying a computer, and, even though I love her, she's certainly
no cyberpunk. Sorry I don't have a better definition, but I don't
think one is strictly necessary.
> Personally, I'm a Christian with a strong interest in the concepts of
>Cyberspace :)
Looking for God, eh? Too bad, he's not in Cyberspace either. =)
----Hugh
Hugh MacMullan IV
>In <2f2an9$p...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
>>I can keep it up for a long time too. In fact, it's one of my fave passtimes.
Show off! (Sorry couldn't resist!)
>>I have decided however, this time, I will not debate the existance of God,
>>but rather his fitness to be worshiped. I have found that this usually
>>throws them for a loop.
>
>>Too bad (or maybe it's good) but it looks like the Xtians have fled in
>>disbeleif and horror. I dare anyone to justify the actions that God has
>>taken in the past that I outlined in my last post. Let the flames begin!
>
> Sorry, I haven't had much time recently.
>
> As has been said in the past, actions taken by Christians are not
>necessarily actions taken by God. If God were to censor things, you would not
>have the freedom to question his existence, or his fitness to be worshipped.
>This freedom is, IMHO the top reason for worshipping, closely followed by the
>awesome ability which he has installed in us to do that questioning, and the
>ability to do the worshipping :)
Indeed, since God doesn't exist then the Xtians are certainly
responsible for their acts. It's too bad that you are wasting your
"freedom" worshipping a myth, and not "questioning".
----Hugh
Bruce Arthu Bendler
two another newsgroop. No cpunkness in that diskussion
Hugh MacMullan IV
I disagree. Subculture can often preclude faith, and vice versa.
>>Fundamentalists on the other hand, IMHO they all should be neutered so they
>>do not make more fundamentalists :-).
>
>I'm not so sure about that. I don't agree with oppressing any ideals of
>anybody, no matter if I agree with their views or not.
Did you notice the smiley :-) ? Sarcasm, man, get a grip. It
certainly wouldn't bother me though ;).
----Hugh
Hugh MacMullan IV
>In article <2f7idm$r...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>> No, there doesn't. Only one that says "Thou shall not *murder*".
>>> Unfortunately the translation process has distorted the rules.
>
>>Every bigle I've seen uses "kill". Do you have an actual reference
>>backing up your claim? This, is a real question, and I'm truly intersted.
>
>religiously well-trained person capable of reading Hebrew. From
>discussions with Hebrew readers I have become convinced that
>"kill" is a mistranslation.
Kill vs. murder. Hmmmm...what's the difference again? Necessity?
>>And later, in regards to reading the Bible with an open mind,
>>jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>
>>> It's pretty tough to read afresh without having being able to read
>>> Hebrew, Greek, etc.
>
>>Well, that's true to a certain extent. However, there is no complete
>>Hebrew version of the Holy Bible, and even if there was, the point would
>>be mute.
>
>The fact that there is no complete Hebrew version is irrelevant,
>in that such portions that do exist clearly will not suffer from
>the distortions inherent in any translation from one language
>to another. Of course I refer to the OT here.
Do you speak Hebrew? If you do, then maybe you won't suffer from
the distortions of translation, but if you ask a scholar to
translate for you then it is still being translated. Sorry.
>>You see, the Bible, translated to English, from Greek, in the forms that
>>are used today is the basis of modern Christian religions in the U.S.
>>Thus, these translations, for the vast majority of Christians forms the
>>basis and foundation of the knoledge about God's will.
>
>Clearly not a good basis, given the realities of translation and the
>omnipresent political forces behind sanctioned translations.
Yeah, but like he said, it's all Christians have.
>>[...]
>
>>Even if the translation is wrong, only new evidence to the contrary will
>>change the beleifs of the religion. And until this evidence is presented,
>>the current traditions stand.
>
>
>Unfortunately this is so. The traditions have been formed, and people
>are best at following officially sanctioned tranditions relatively
>mindlessly.
Precisely why these people aren't cyberpunks.
----Hugh
Hugh MacMullan IV
>> asking a religiously well-trained person capable of reading Hebrew. From
>> discussions with Hebrew readers I have become convinced that "kill" is a
>> mistranslation.
>
>never really given much thought to the origins of the Old Testiment...
>I assume each "book" (i.e. Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) may have a different
>origin. Is this true?
>
>Can you quickly shed any light on this matter?
Does it matter? God allows innocents to be murdered ever day.
Babies. Children. During WWII 6 million Jews were slaughtered in
concentration camps. Why would God allow this slaughter? The
starvation of children. Raping of young girls. What's His problem?
The problem is, he is either dead, or doesn't exist.
Just for the record, it is a sin to murder, not kill. Straight from
the book of Hugh.
----Hugh
KaFKA
In a paranoid rage, Gregg Jaeger wrote the following:
JA> In article <2f4me3$5...@mailer.fsu.edu> af9...@gold.acns.fsu.edu (Andie Foster) writes:
JA>
JA> >xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
JA>
JA> >> >1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
JA> >> > Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
JA>
JA> >> Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
Can we take all this bullshit about religion to
alt.atheism or alt.religion.oppresses.the.people please ?
Patrick
- ---
Patrick Oonk |
KA...@DESERT.HACKTIC.NL | Use the source, Luke !
Finger ka...@hacktic.nl |
for PGP public key |
PAGER: 06-58358511/2/3/4 |
=========== Hacktic Network Foundation: Internet for the people ! ============
я
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
iQCVAgUBLRcjaL5mNggyLQMFAQGMpwP/boxYF6o538McxXvMjyWsQULHKUndzG8h
CSswAIW400fBHCKM5O1wDTykSbW0dmNcuuRjyTmjVy7q6MJ5qQ4GsO6gyZDm33u1
x9YHROJBDpk4JMK0TSgkR5N7KgsmDHPmUyk2816kdq7EEPw2LLIkPl6PS6pnclsz
2AhOP1afa4g=
=32BY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sHrOom
> : shr...@theporch.raider.net (sHrOom) writes:
>
> : > Who says that Christians don't believe that information should be free..
> : > Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
> : > in MY bible.....
>
> Can you say "ban"? Can you say "censor"? The basic social activity of
> some kinds of Christians (one might say their *only* social activity) is
> attempting to ban, censor and outlaw everything they consider bad, evil
> and immoral.
>
> This behavior and the mindset that makes it possible is antithetical to
> cyberpunk. You cannot be a cyberpunk and at the same time agree that
> certain information should be banned, censored or outlawed.
You're grouping again..
Although I feel it is morally wrong to look at child pornography, I don't
think it should be illegal, unless the children are being hurt. The same for
abortion. It is murder, but if people want to kill, it is thier choice...I
still think it should be LEGAL though.
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Christopher Loch | ARTICLE 19 of the United Nations Universal %
Editor of ARTICLE 19 | Declaration of Human Rights states: "Every- %
shr...@theporch.raider.net | one has the right to freedom of expression; %
{PGP 2.3 key availiable} | this right includes freedom to hold opinions %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % %| without intereference, and to seek, recieve %
The views expressed above | and impart information and ideas, through any%
ARE those of ARTICLE 19.. | media, regardless of frontiers." %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
sHrOom
> dje...@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer) writes:
>
> >Robert, you've fallen into the trap of discussing God and religion. You
> >know they can keep *that* up forever. That's all they do. The subject
> >is: can Christians be cyberpunks?
>
> I can keep it up for a long time too. In fact, it's one of my fave passtimes
> I have decided however, this time, I will not debate the existance of God,
> but rather his fitness to be worshiped. I have found that this usually
> throws them for a loop.
>
> Too bad (or maybe it's good) but it looks like the Xtians have fled in
> disbeleif and horror. I dare anyone to justify the actions that God has
Everyone brings up that whole Crusades thing. God did not do
that...people did. If I said I was going to fuck a man in the name of CP,
does that mean that all CP's are gay?
Sorry, but I didn't see your last post..
Sourcerer
xyzzy wrote:
: Not sexist. Women just have different and separate roles than men.
: He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
: modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
So you just modify your ideals to suit your needs? You believe that's
definitely cyberpunk. Do you believe its definitely Christian? But wait...
: As a Christian woman, I do know my role as a woman, but as a cyberpunk enthus-
: iast, I do not accept it nor do I want it.
Why do you put up with this...confusion(?)?
: tronic freedom.
: To say that women have their place or that anyone that does not follow
: mainstream culture is evil is very counteractive to this freedom.
: Personally, I think that whether a cyberpunk is Christian or not is mean-
: ingless since one is a faith one follows and the other is a subculture. A
: human being is a complex organism, not every belief of a Christian is
: necessarily going to go along with their Christian beliefs.
Wait a second. It's obviously meaningless to him because his ideals are
so, um, elastic, but what about you? Really?
: Fundamentalists on the other hand, IMHO they all should be neutered so they
: do not make more fundamentalists :-).
: Donna
: mil...@ess.mc.xerox.com
: ps. forgive me if this file comes out scrogged. My vi(evil) editor idoes no
: not work well with my present os
Por nada, but Donna! This is a very confusing post. "not every belief of
a Christian is necessarily going to go along with their Christian beliefs".
Is this a misstatement?
Sourcerer
: >: shr...@theporch.raider.net (sHrOom) writes:
: >: > Who says that Christians don't believe that information should be free..
: >: > Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
: >: > in MY bible.....
: >Can you say "ban"? Can you say "censor"? The basic social activity of
: >some kinds of Christians (one might say their *only* social activity) is
: some kinds, how unfortunately true.
: >attempting to ban, censor and outlaw everything they consider bad, evil
: >and immoral.
: >This behavior and the mindset that makes it possible is antithetical to
: >cyberpunk. You cannot be a cyberpunk and at the same time agree that
: >certain information should be banned, censored or outlawed.
: Well, how about material which tries to convince everyone that cyberpunk
: activities should be banned? Do you mean 'certain information' to be something
: more specific than 'any information' in this context?
I mean any information
: >Robert, you've fallen into the trap of discussing God and religion. You
: >know they can keep *that* up forever. That's all they do. The subject
: >is: can Christians be cyberpunks?
: *shrug* What would make it impossible for a Christian to be cyberpunk?
Keep reading. I've just posted on this.
: Since 'Cyberpunk' and 'Christian' have such loose definitions,
They appear (so far) to be "loose" only to the people trying to maintain both.
So far no Christian has offered any definitions, though they claim to have
them. Mostly they're being either very defensive, or taking your line
about loose definitions and a little bit of this, a little bit of that and
can't we all get along.
: it will be hard
: to get people to agree on the issue.
Oh, I think there's a definite trend.
I suggest that instead of asking if
: Cyberpunk and Christianity are compatible, try and figure out which
: definitions of each are compatible with which definitions of the other.
Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck about finding out what in my ethos is
compatible with Christianity. Don't you understand? We don't want to
discuss Jesus. We don't want a christianized cyberpunk. This
sounds like another infiltration scheme.
: I.E. if, for you, the definition of Christianity involves strict obedience to
: an authority figure, and the definition of Cyberpunk involves rebellion
: against authority, there's going to be a lot of conflict. However, if your
: definition of Christianity involves only the belief that Christ came to save
: you, and your definition of Cyberpunk involves only an interest in networked
: computer technology, then there is no conflict.
Uh huh.
: Jason Schmidt Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21
: Guitarist for His Honor Help Room Staff - Iowa State University
: opinions in this message are solely my own
--
Shneor Sherman
Sorry, but Jesus is the latinized version of Yeshua, the original in Hebrew.
- Shneor Sherman
Robert Mah
>rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>> I can keep it up for a long time too. In fact, it's one of my fave passtimes
>> I have decided however, this time, I will not debate the existance of God,
>> but rather his fitness to be worshiped. I have found that this usually
>> throws them for a loop.
>Everyone brings up that whole Crusades thing. God did not do
>that...people did. If I said I was going to fuck a man in the name of CP,
>does that mean that all CP's are gay?
>Sorry, but I didn't see your last post..
Ohh, well I wasn't talking about what _people_ have done in the name of
God. I'm talking about what God has done.
My original post outlined a few sins (and nasty stuff) that God has commited
during his long tenure over our planet and universe.
To wit:
1. He has murdered (I'd call killing innocent children murder).
2. He has lied (to Adam re: tree of knowledge and time of death after
eating thereof).
3. He has created a child out of wedlock. (may not be an actual sin).
4. He has not respected the environment by polluting reclessly.
5. He has tortured people.
Etc., etc.
To sum up, God has sinned. Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, thereby imparting upon us the wisdom to tell the two
apart. I for one, think that many of God's actions can easily be
classified as "evil".
Conclusion: God is not fit to be worshiped except by those demented enough
to worship liers, torturers, mass murderers, polluters and sinners.
Questions?
Cheers,
Robert Mah
>Sorry, but Jesus is the latinized version of Yeshua, the original in Hebrew.
Damn. Someone else, I'm afraid I can't remember who, said somthing about
"Jesus" being a mistranslation of some word that meant "of the Nazarene".
Or something like that.
Happy Christmas,
Robert Mah
> Finally: Why do I fear Christians? Because they have been the
> scourge of civilization, culture, science, beauty, art, love, and
> freedom for 2000 years.
Ain't that the truth. Did you know the actually promoted someone to
sainthood (St. Cecil I believe, but I may be mistaken) for burning down
the library of Alexandria. It was, at the time, the greatest repository
of knowledge in the near east and europe, and possibly the entire world.
Countless works of scholorship were lost forever. And they sainted the
crazy zelot for God's sake.
Later,
TENDAI III
Tenno heika banzai!
Christian view is: There is an allmighty God, knowing everything,
who has created the world and still controls his creation.
For a long time a Christian symbol for the world was a pyramid
with God at its top.
I do not believe, that anybody, considering himself cyberpunk, can
believe in such ideas any longer.
Quantum Theory, System Theory, Chaos Theory and Information Theory have
shown, that this is no world, that can be predicted or controlled.
God is Law and Order, but everything I can see is Chaos.
Life is no top-down system. Simple forms of organisation create more
complex forms. Why should the most complex being be the first.
I think, we should kill God and start democratic elections.
TENDAI
Hugh MacMullan IV
Fortunately, he died right after creating the Universe. I nominate
Captain Crunch, the benevolent cereal pusher. He is kind, wise, has
that grandfatherly look so important to an all-powerful god, and has
the power to make his eyebrows float above his head. What more
could you ask for?
----Hugh
david e doughty
>shr...@theporch.raider.net (sHrOom) writes:
>
>>rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
>>> I have decided however, this time, I will not debate the existance of God,
>>> but rather his fitness to be worshiped. I have found that this usually
>>> throws them for a loop.
>
>God. I'm talking about what God has done.
>
>My original post outlined a few sins (and nasty stuff) that God has commited
>during his long tenure over our planet and universe.
>
>
>To sum up, God has sinned. Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of
>good and evil, thereby imparting upon us the wisdom to tell the two
>apart. I for one, think that many of God's actions can easily be
>classified as "evil".
>
>Conclusion: God is not fit to be worshiped except by those demented enough
>to worship liers, torturers, mass murderers, polluters and sinners.
>
>Questions?
Just one - who are you to determine what's right or wrong for God?
Assuming He exits (as you did above), He is the Supreme Being. He made all
this, so He made the rules. He told Adam and Eve "eat anything in Eden,
except that one tree". They ate from that tree. They broke the rules.
They lose. End of story. "Game over, man." (Ob (almost) cpunk obscure quote)
God could have wiped out the whole creation at that point and not one
angel could have said He was being unjust. But He chose not to. That's
the whole "Gospel" right there. Instead of just wiping it all out then and
there, He decided (I don't know why, ask Him) to go on with history, with
a whole planet of humans whose Father and Mother had damned them before
they even were born. But God set up a plan to "un-damn" some of them,
aka the believing BC Jews (i.e. Abraham, Moses, David, etc) and the
believing AD Christians. Why HE chooses to "un-damn" some and let others
follow their fate, I don't know. Again, ask Him. But like I said, He's
the Supreme Being here, so He makes the rules. His rules are just.
And He does not break His own rules, although He does allow room for mercy.
His rules don't always seem fair to us, but considering we all broke the rules,
is it any wonder they seem skewed from our perspective?
Now all this isn't just a blind faith for me, but it is my faith.
And you don't have to believe it. I'm not here to shove anything down
anybody's throat (even though it is true whether you believe it or not).
You don't even have to read this. But you challenged
my God, and asked for responses, so there you are!
>
>Cheers,
>Rob
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
>One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
--
David E. Doughty | "Far over the Misty Mountains cold,
-}------- | To dungeons deep, and caverns old,
sa...@hubcap.clemson.edu | We must away, ere break of day,
ddo...@eng.clemson.edu | To find our long forgotten gold."
David McIntyre
> please take this discusion of the origins of holey skriptchur
>two another newsgroop. No cpunkness in that diskussion
Gee. Interesting spelling coming from a university. :) Anyway, most of the
thread IS relating to Cyberpunk.
--
xyzzy@ | Opinions expressed | I'm not half as think | More fun than I
imagen.com | are entirely my own | as confused you am. | should be having
David McIntyre
>>>Fundamentalists on the other hand, IMHO they all should be neutered so they
>>>do not make more fundamentalists :-).
>>
>>I'm not so sure about that. I don't agree with oppressing any ideals of
>>anybody, no matter if I agree with their views or not.
>Did you notice the smiley :-) ? Sarcasm, man, get a grip. It
>certainly wouldn't bother me though ;).
Yeah. I noticed the smiley. I just felt that I needed to say what I did. I
don't have a smiley that represents a non-incriminating, but non-amused
viewpoint.
Hugh MacMullan IV
>In article <2f83oe$b...@morrow.stanford.edu> AS....@forsythe.stanford.edu (Hugh MacMullan IV) writes:
>>>>Fundamentalists on the other hand, IMHO they all should be neutered so they
>>>>do not make more fundamentalists :-).
>>>
>>>I'm not so sure about that. I don't agree with oppressing any ideals of
>>>anybody, no matter if I agree with their views or not.
>
>>Did you notice the smiley :-) ? Sarcasm, man, get a grip. It
>>certainly wouldn't bother me though ;).
>
>Yeah. I noticed the smiley. I just felt that I needed to say what I did. I
>don't have a smiley that represents a non-incriminating, but non-amused
>viewpoint.
I like this one: :-/
You are right though, one shouldn't kid about "neutering" or crack
jokes about extermination of any group. This is how oppression
begins, through making thoughts alright by adding humor.
Sorry, I'll certainly try and not do it myself anymore.
----Hugh
Tommy Usher
rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
RM>shr...@theporch.raider.net (sHrOom) writes:
RM>> Who says that Christians don't believe that information should be free..
RM>> Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
RM>> in MY bible.....
RM>That isn't the only definition of what a CP is. And just because a
RM>reference does not state a position does not indicate that it does not
RM>hold it.
I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but this message is such a pile
of ignorant garbage, I feel I have no choice.
RM>And aside from your lack of logic, Christianity does in fact espouse the
RM>idea that knowledge is a Really Bad Thing (tm). In Genesis, for example,
RM>God states, "Of everty tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of
RM>the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thous shalt not eat of it: for
RM>in the day that thou eastest therof thou shalt surely die."
RM>Clearly showing that the God of the Christian religion does not approve of
RM>the free disemination of knowledge. Even of the most basic sort.
First off, you obviously don't understand what this means. Knowledge of
good AND evil is not a basic thing. I suppose you would object to a world
that lacks evil?
RM>> What is it with all these Christian-haters in Cyberspace. Yes, I'll
RM>> admit, there is corruption in "The Church" but we must remember that
RM>> EVERYONE sins. Christian means "One who follows Christ." When a priest
RM>Even God.
Wrong, God, by nature, cannot sin.
RM>Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
RM>a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
RM>1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
RM>Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
After numerous warnings.
RM>2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
That is because they don't exist.
RM>3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
RM>was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
RM>famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
RM>river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
Cute, but it is His to do with as He pleases.
RM>4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
In this case, no.
RM>5. He lied (see above, Adam and Eve did not die they ate of tree of
RM>knowledge).
Yes, they did. They immediately died spiritually. And they ulimately
died physically. If they had not sinned, they would still be alive.
RM>6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
No, this is a crock.
RM>7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
He chose them as a means to save all people.
RM>To sum up, not the kind of God I'd want to worship. If I beleived in
RM>Invisble Pink Unicorns or Little Blue Men That Live In Large Mushrooms.
Ah, I see, you are a supposed atheist.
RM>> Many people don't want to follow Christ because they say he was a wimp,
RM>> and let people beat him up and spit on them. Nothing is farther from the
RM>> truth! How more (Cyber)punk can you get than telling all the corrupt
RM>> rules that they're gonna burn in hell? That was like treason back then!
RM>Lest you think I'm some sort of evil and twisted person, I think that
RM>most (but not the obey the state part) of Christ's philosophy is pretty
RM>much on the mark and would would lead to a better world if everyone
RM>followed them.
No, just the usual anti-Christian bigot who likes to flame people.
RM>> Jesus is awesome, and it's only because He lovves you that you are living
RM>> right now..
RM>Is "He" God or is "He" Christ? And is "Christ" divine? If so, is he a
RM>diety? If so, is Christianity a polythiastic religion? Should Christians
RM>care if it is?
Jesus Christ was God the Son. There is one God, in three Persons.
RM>> Alright, you can flame me now, but we know who's gonna get flamed in
RM>> The End..
RM>Christ does not, as far as I can recall, mention Hell or eternal damnation
RM>(some Christian sects, true to the word do not beleive in a Satan or hell).
RM>That is a mythology that, if I recall correctly, is adapted from the Roman
RM>adaptation of the Egyptian mythos (alternate religions were very big during
RM>the first few centuries after Christ).
Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible. He has quite a bit to say
about Hell. It is no mythology, it is clearly taught in the Bible. Try
actually reading it sometime. It might suprise you.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . I'm sorry..All taglines are busy now..Please hold.....
Tommy Usher
In article <2f2an9$p...@panix.com>,
rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>dje...@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer) writes:
>>Robert, you've fallen into the trap of discussing God and religion. You
>>know they can keep *that* up forever. That's all they do. The subject
>>is: can Christians be cyberpunks?
>I can keep it up for a long time too. In fact, it's one of my fave passtimes.
>I have decided however, this time, I will not debate the existance of God,
>but rather his fitness to be worshiped. I have found that this usually
>throws them for a loop.
I am sure you can, and I am sure it is. You are just another anti-Christian
bigot. I have met your kind on several boards, and you sound like all the
rest. Sorry, but I don't throw so easily. I normally don't get into too
many threads here, prefering to lurk and read the ludicrous posts that most
make here, but you sound like you need a little bit of a challenge.
>Too bad (or maybe it's good) but it looks like the Xtians have fled in
>disbeleif and horror. I dare anyone to justify the actions that God has
>taken in the past that I outlined in my last post. Let the flames begin!
I already answered your charges. No, this Christian has not fled in
disbelief and horror. In every case where people are killed, they a)
deserved it, and b) were given a chance to repent and escape. And in
every case where they repented, they were spared. Sorry, but you have
met your match this time.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . Windows: Veni, vidi, shelfi.
Donna Miller
Dear Mr. Sourcerer,
It seems I may have to clarify some things for you. I am a Christian. My
belief systems clash with many other Christians. For example, Last
Saturday night I went to a Pagan Circle. Instead of finding it evil, I
found it highly beautiful. I met alot of great people who share much of
my belief system. I could identify much more easily with them than with
most Christians. This is what I'm getting at. I am a Christian. The
last thing I want to see is these people become Christian because alot
of what makes them unique would be lost. The problem you have with
Christians is the problem that I have with Evangelists and Funnymental-
ists to quote Mark a friend of mine. That problem is intolerance with
other belief systems. The whole idea of Christianity originally was not
intolerance. It became corrupted by Evangelists and Funnymentalists into
intolerance and hate(no I'm not trying to convert you only trying to point
out my position.
And speaking of intolerance...
I don't know if I would be called a cyberpunk. I just don't like the idea
of an exclusive elitist club with someone telling me that because I
subscribe to a certain faith that I can't belong. Sounds an awful lot
like intolerance and I have a problem with that.
If my post still seems unclear to you please email me.
Donna Miller
mil...@ess.mc.xerox.com
ps. After tomorrow(12/23/93) I will not be able to read my mail until
the first of the year.
Hugh MacMullan IV
>rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>RM>shr...@theporch.raider.net (sHrOom) writes:
>RM>> Who says that Christians don't believe that information should be free..
>RM>> Where did you get that from? I can't find any Bible reference like that
>RM>> in MY bible.....
>
>RM>That isn't the only definition of what a CP is. And just because a
>RM>reference does not state a position does not indicate that it does not
>RM>hold it.
>
>I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but this message is such a pile
>of ignorant garbage, I feel I have no choice.
Ditto.
>RM>And aside from your lack of logic, Christianity does in fact espouse the
>RM>idea that knowledge is a Really Bad Thing (tm). In Genesis, for example,
>RM>God states, "Of everty tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of
>RM>the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thous shalt not eat of it: for
>RM>in the day that thou eastest therof thou shalt surely die."
>
>RM>Clearly showing that the God of the Christian religion does not approve of
>RM>the free disemination of knowledge. Even of the most basic sort.
>
>First off, you obviously don't understand what this means. Knowledge of
>good AND evil is not a basic thing. I suppose you would object to a world
>that lacks evil?
No, you don't understand what this means. Just because you don't
have knowledge of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Do
you think that Eve's eating the Apple was, overall, a good or a bad
thing? I would argue that any cyberpunk would say a good thing,
while most Xtians would say a bad thing. I WOULD object to a world
full of blissfully brain-washed creatures that can't see the evil of
their God.
>RM>> What is it with all these Christian-haters in Cyberspace. Yes, I'll
>RM>> admit, there is corruption in "The Church" but we must remember that
>RM>> EVERYONE sins. Christian means "One who follows Christ." When a priest
>
>RM>Even God.
>
>Wrong, God, by nature, cannot sin.
True, fictional characters cannot, by nature, sin =). Really, why
can't God sin? Because He's perfect? Because when He sins it's
just not a sin? Why? Where did you get your info, from the Bible?
I believe that this document has been discarded as a piece of
historical interest in the areas of philosophy, history and
religion, but is certainly not "holy". Show me some proof. Oh
yeah, I forgot, there is none, I'm just supposed to "believe".
>RM>Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
>RM>a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
>
>RM>1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>RM>Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>
>After numerous warnings.
So what? Warning someone that they are going to be killed doesn't
make the killing o.k., it only makes the Egyptians stupid for not
reacting.
>RM>2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
>
>That is because they don't exist.
You're right, as far as I can tell, but he has allowed countless
innocents to be tortured in His name, etc. etc. blah, blah and
didn't stop any of it. Why would any God, especially one concerned
with "goodness" allow this behavior?
>RM>3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
>RM>was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
>RM>famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
>RM>river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
>
>Cute, but it is His to do with as He pleases.
So if I own a plot of land I can "do with as [I] please?"
>RM>4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
>
>In this case, no.
Why, 'cause He's God? Fuck you. Even if it were God who fucked my
(theoretical) wife, it would be a sin, and I'd be pissed. Why
didn't he choose someone unattached?
>RM>5. He lied (see above, Adam and Eve did not die they ate of tree of
>RM>knowledge).
>
>Yes, they did. They immediately died spiritually. And they ulimately
>died physically. If they had not sinned, they would still be alive.
Do any of you really believe that Adam & Eve truly existed? My, you
are short sighted and gullible if you do.
>RM>6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
>
>No, this is a crock.
You're probably right, God isn't sexist, it's all those damned
Xtians who are sexist in His name that give him a bad name.
>RM>7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
>
>He chose them as a means to save all people.
No comment, as I know nothing about this issue. Sorry.
>RM>To sum up, not the kind of God I'd want to worship. If I beleived in
>RM>Invisble Pink Unicorns or Little Blue Men That Live In Large Mushrooms.
>
>Ah, I see, you are a supposed atheist.
Why "supposed"? Just curious.
>RM>> Many people don't want to follow Christ because they say he was a wimp,
>RM>> and let people beat him up and spit on them. Nothing is farther from the
>RM>> truth! How more (Cyber)punk can you get than telling all the corrupt
>RM>> rules that they're gonna burn in hell? That was like treason back then!
>
>RM>Lest you think I'm some sort of evil and twisted person, I think that
>RM>most (but not the obey the state part) of Christ's philosophy is pretty
>RM>much on the mark and would would lead to a better world if everyone
>RM>followed them.
>
>No, just the usual anti-Christian bigot who likes to flame people.
>
>RM>> Jesus is awesome, and it's only because He lovves you that you are living
>RM>> right now..
>
>RM>Is "He" God or is "He" Christ? And is "Christ" divine? If so, is he a
>RM>diety? If so, is Christianity a polythiastic religion? Should Christians
>RM>care if it is?
>
>Jesus Christ was God the Son. There is one God, in three Persons.
No there's not.
>RM>> Alright, you can flame me now, but we know who's gonna get flamed in
>RM>> The End..
Pompous asshole. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't
mean that they are evil. That is the twisted root of fear that is
ensconced in the Xtian religion that I hate. Be bad ---> go to
Hell. I like: Be Bad ----> Feel guilty and truly repent to yourself
and anyone you hurt. Plenty moral for me.
>RM>Christ does not, as far as I can recall, mention Hell or eternal damnation
>RM>(some Christian sects, true to the word do not beleive in a Satan or hell).
>RM>That is a mythology that, if I recall correctly, is adapted from the Roman
>RM>adaptation of the Egyptian mythos (alternate religions were very big during
>RM>the first few centuries after Christ).
>
>Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible. He has quite a bit to say
>about Hell. It is no mythology, it is clearly taught in the Bible. Try
>actually reading it sometime. It might suprise you.
You're right, I think he needs to do his homework. Christ even met
Satan in the desert. But all of this is irrelevant to the issue:
can Xtians be CPs? Hmmm...actually, it's not irrelevant, it affirms
how ridiculous Christian history and mandates are, and that Xtians
will never be cyberpunks, there is a fundamental clash in beliefs.
----Hugh
sHrOom
> >rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
> My original post outlined a few sins (and nasty stuff) that God has commited
> during his long tenure over our planet and universe.
>
> To wit:
>
> 1. He has murdered (I'd call killing innocent children murder).
Killing what innocent children? Where the hell did you get this?
> 2. He has lied (to Adam re: tree of knowledge and time of death after
> eating thereof).
How did he lie?
> 3. He has created a child out of wedlock. (may not be an actual sin).
No, God and Mary did not have sex to create Jesus..
> 4. He has not respected the environment by polluting reclessly.
God does not pollute the world...we do.
> 5. He has tortured people.
How has He done this?
I think you need to go back and read your Bible.
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>them. Mostly they're being either very defensive, or taking your line
>about loose definitions and a little bit of this, a little bit of that and
>can't we all get along.
>
>
>: it will be hard
>: to get people to agree on the issue.
>
>Oh, I think there's a definite trend.
>
> I suggest that instead of asking if
>: Cyberpunk and Christianity are compatible, try and figure out which
>: definitions of each are compatible with which definitions of the other.
>
>Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck about finding out what in my ethos is
>compatible with Christianity. Don't you understand? We don't want to
>discuss Jesus. We don't want a christianized cyberpunk. This
>sounds like another infiltration scheme.
>
>: I.E. if, for you, the definition of Christianity involves strict obedience to
>: an authority figure, and the definition of Cyberpunk involves rebellion
>: against authority, there's going to be a lot of conflict. However, if your
>: definition of Christianity involves only the belief that Christ came to save
>: you, and your definition of Cyberpunk involves only an interest in networked
>: computer technology, then there is no conflict.
>
>Uh huh.
the both suck in my opinion. I dont want to know what Xtians think of Cpunk,
since I am GAWD, and they dont play a major role in my decision making procces.
But you must admit, this is the hottest thread to fly thruogh here in awhile..
ALsO, to those who keep atempting to call this an infiltration plot, well rememebr that most of the Xtians are to good-natured to think they are attempting a plot...
Sourcerer
: jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
: > No, there doesn't. Only one that says "Thou shall not *murder*".
: > Unfortunately the translation process has distorted the rules.
So? What is the difference between killing someone and murdering someone
-- except to qualify one sort of killing (god's sort of killing) as
justifiable? God doesn't murder, he justs kill people (with justification:
they were bad). I am not impressed.
: Every bigle I've seen uses "kill". Do you have an actual reference
: backing up your claim? This, is a real question, and I'm truly intersted.
: And later, in regards to reading the Bible with an open mind,
: jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
: > It's pretty tough to read afresh without having being able to read
: > Hebrew, Greek, etc.
What is the point here? You can read it afresh by first setting aside
your belief system and reading it just like you'd read anything else. You
can read it afresh by studying bible criticism techniques -- or any
literary critical apparatus. Or just by employing mother wit.
Hebrew? Greek? Kill? Murder? Smokescreen???
Sourcerer
: jae...@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
: > The actual reference ["kill" vs "murder"] is the text in Hebrew. I suggest
: > asking a religiously well-trained person capable of reading Hebrew. From
: > discussions with Hebrew readers I have become convinced that "kill" is a
: > mistranslation.
: OK, but what text. Torah, Dead Sea Scrolls, or something else. I've
: never really given much thought to the origins of the Old Testiment...
: I assume each "book" (i.e. Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) may have a different
: origin. Is this true?
: Can you quickly shed any light on this matter?
: Cheers,
: Rob
: --
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
: One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
The term used translates to murder -- meaning killing which isn't either
war or capital punishment which are reserved privileges of the state.
Remember Robert, these are not universal moral rules, but the criminal code
of a theocratic tyranny. Therefore the killing it requires to promote its
ends are justified by its god.
Robert Mah
season of joy and good tidings, it would be sad to have anyone feel
unwelcome or unloved.
But.....
tommy...@the-matrix.com (Tommy Usher) writes:
>First off, you obviously don't understand what this means. Knowledge of
>good AND evil is not a basic thing. I suppose you would object to a world
>that lacks evil?
In short yes. Because without evil there can be no good. They can only
exist in opposition to each other.
The question is, should human beings have knowledge of good and evil?
> Wrong, God, by nature, cannot sin.
You seem to excuse him because of the circumstances not deny the actions
themselves. Even hommicidal maniacs can try to justify their actions.
>>1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>> Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
> After numerous warnings.
Right, if I kill someone after warning them many many times, it's not a sin.
Sure.
>> 2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
> That is because they don't exist.
Some others have chimed in to provide a few examples. Job was one. Jonah
was another. Hmm, I wonder if he only tortures people who's names start
with "J"? Would this be OK?
>>3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
>> was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
>> famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
>> river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
> Cute, but it is His to do with as He pleases.
Oh, I'm not arguing that God _can't_ do it. It's obvious that he has.
All I'm doing is pointing out that he has done things that most people
would find objectionable.
>>4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
> In this case, no.
How come?
>>5. He lied (see above, Adam and Eve did not die they ate of tree of
>> knowledge).
>Yes, they did. They immediately died spiritually. And they ulimately
>died physically. If they had not sinned, they would still be alive.
References. I want quotes that say they died spiritually on the day they
ate. Besides that, God didn't say, "you'll die spiritually when you eat
the fruit.". He said, "die", "on the day". They didn't. He lied.
>>6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
> No, this is a crock.
Right. Refer to other messages for proof.
>>7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
> He chose them as a means to save all people.
Proove it. Again, I want references.
> Ah, I see, you are a supposed atheist.
No, I'm a real atheist.
> No, just the usual anti-Christian bigot who likes to flame people.
I don't dislike all Christian's, just you. In fact, sitting next to me
is one of my best friends, a Jesuit-educated Catholic person. He's been
helping me with biblical references and providing the Catholic viewpoint
on how big an idiot you are.
>> Is "He" God or is "He" Christ? And is "Christ" divine? If so, is he a
>> diety? If so, is Christianity a polythiastic religion? Should Christians
>> care if it is?
> Jesus Christ was God the Son. There is one God, in three Persons.
Right. Again, I don't see why Christians have such a hard time accepting
the fact that their religion is a polytheastic one. What's the big deal?
Why is that bad?
>Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible. He has quite a bit to say
>about Hell. It is no mythology, it is clearly taught in the Bible. Try
>actually reading it sometime. It might suprise you.
I did read it. From cover to cover. That's why I'm now an athiest.
Happy Christmas,
Robert Mah
>rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>> 1. He has murdered (I'd call killing innocent children murder).
>Killing what innocent children? Where the hell did you get this?
Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the
firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firsttborn of Pharaoh that sat on
his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and
all the firstborn of cattle.
Tell me a baby born the day before did something nasty. He's barely had
time to wet his diaper.
>> 2. He has lied (to Adam re: tree of knowledge and time of death after
>> eating thereof).
>How did he lie?
>> 4. He has not respected the environment by polluting reclessly.
> God does not pollute the world...we do.
Again, refering to Exodus 7:21 And the fish that was in the river died;
and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the
river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
Destruction of the most important river system in north Africa would be
called, by most sane people, an act of ecological mayem of biblical
proportions.
And of course, there was always that little drizzle called the Great Flood.
>> 5. He has tortured people.
> How has He done this?
Again, Job, Joseph and Jonah, and a few others too.
> I think you need to go back and read your Bible.
Maybe you should.
Robert Mah
>>Conclusion: God is not fit to be worshiped except by those demented enough
>>to worship liers, torturers, mass murderers, polluters and sinners.
>>
>>Questions?
>Just one - who are you to determine what's right or wrong for God?
That's easy. After Adam and Eve ate of the tree of good and evil, man
possesed the knoweldge to discern the difference thereof.
Therefore, we _can_ tell the difference between good and evil. Therefore,
we can make judgements about actions by other beings.
Happy Christmas,
Sourcerer
: Dear Mr. Sourcerer,
: It seems I may have to clarify some things for you. I am a Christian. My
: belief systems clash with many other Christians. For example, Last
: Saturday night I went to a Pagan Circle. Instead of finding it evil, I
: found it highly beautiful. I met alot of great people who share much of
: my belief system. I could identify much more easily with them than with
: most Christians. This is what I'm getting at. I am a Christian. The
: last thing I want to see is these people become Christian because alot
: of what makes them unique would be lost. The problem you have with
: Christians is the problem that I have with Evangelists and Funnymental-
: ists to quote Mark a friend of mine. That problem is intolerance with
: other belief systems. The whole idea of Christianity originally was not
: intolerance. It became corrupted by Evangelists and Funnymentalists into
: intolerance and hate(no I'm not trying to convert you only trying to point
: out my position.
As I've said I'm not here to discuss Christianity or the bible or god, but
to find out how and why some Christians claim to be cyberpunks. As I've
said before Christians are perfectly adequate to the task of hacking
each other to pieces over differences of opinion about the meaning of
fairy tales. You've been doing it for millenia.
: And speaking of intolerance...
: I don't know if I would be called a cyberpunk. I just don't like the idea
: of an exclusive elitist club with someone telling me that because I
: subscribe to a certain faith that I can't belong. Sounds an awful lot
: like intolerance and I have a problem with that.
"Exclusive elitist club" is a bit of special pleading. You attended a
pagan circle. Does that make you a pagan-christian? You have a computer
and log onto the net and read alt.cyberpunk. Does that make you a
cyberpunk-Christian?
This has nothing to do with excluding people from something. It is an
attempt to clarify meanings and values.
If I attended your church and told you I was an atheist-christian, I
think you would be as amazed as I am to hear people describe themselves as
cyberpunk-Christians. And you might be a bit suspicious at my presence in the
pew.
Bruce Arthu Bendler
"Even though it is true, wether you believe it or not", and "I'm
not here to shove anything down anybody's throat" just dont seem to go
well in the same post. Well, what if my response was that you challenged MY
DOG? I dont want to fall to attacking the Bilbe, since that's a little too
predictable, so I'll start this way....
By my belief system, I am the one who controls my destiny, I allow for
mercy, I break my own rules, could it be that you all have skewed them? NO of
course I couldnt ask you to believe that as true. So how can you ask me to
believe that the rules you live by are "true"? As for all of us breaking them
well thats kinda dumb, as I could use the standard,"oh gosh, what about the poor infants who die at birth?" argument to say your DOG is unjust, but that
argument will get us nowhere, so i propose this.... If I broke your DOGs rules
that would mean I have to believe in him to take any thing to heart, but since
I dont, and his rules mean absolutetly nothing to e, I can not possibly skew
them as you propose if I dont take hold of them....
Basically, you can believe what you want but just remember that I am
right wether you believe it or not........
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>In article <CIEtA...@news.udel.edu> 68...@brahms.udel.edu (Bruce Arthu Bendler) writes:
>
>> please take this discusion of the origins of holey skriptchur
>>two another newsgroop. No cpunkness in that diskussion
>
>Gee. Interesting spelling coming from a university. :) Anyway, most of the
>thread IS relating to Cyberpunk.
>
thread does have something to do with Cpunk, but a few of the posts have past
into the realm of theology with no basis in this newsgroups. I think we can
identify these posts, BUT overall I am proud of the rest of you guys who have
kept to the topic of this room while still exploring this thread....
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>RM>.@SUBJECT:Re: Christian Cyberpunks N
>In article <2f2an9$p...@panix.com>,
>rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
>>dje...@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer) writes:
<<<<<<<a bunch of stuff said by Sourceror deleted to save space>>>>>>
and here is Tommy Usher responds to Sourceror with:
>I am sure you can, and I am sure it is. You are just another anti-Christian
>bigot. I have met your kind on several boards, and you sound like all the
>rest. Sorry, but I don't throw so easily. I normally don't get into too
>many threads here, prefering to lurk and read the ludicrous posts that most
>make here, but you sound like you need a little bit of a challenge.
>
>>Too bad (or maybe it's good) but it looks like the Xtians have fled in
>>disbeleif and horror. I dare anyone to justify the actions that God has
>>taken in the past that I outlined in my last post. Let the flames begin!
>
>I already answered your charges. No, this Christian has not fled in
>disbelief and horror. In every case where people are killed, they a)
>deserved it, and b) were given a chance to repent and escape. And in
>every case where they repented, they were spared. Sorry, but you have
>met your match this time.
>
A) they deserved to be killed....... who makes that judgment? Did
all those who had not done these horrible sins deserve to be killed in Sodom
or in THE FLOOD(tm)? If you make that judgement than of course you'll testify
in DOGs favor, but if I make it then I'll have to go against DOG. WoW, see
what happens when you put DOG on trial?
B) THey were given a chance to escape?........Yep, they all were asked
if they would like a ticket on the LUVBOAT(ark) before DOG commenced THE FLOOD.
Sure DOG is just and fair, if your definition of just and fair happens to be
defined by him. Actually why am i discusing this since DOG is a symbol, and
not real?
Now, DOG is a symbol plain and simple(not simple really...but) a
symbol of the wierd forces that life and nature can take on. Well, at least
that's my belief, so if you dont agree I'll make sure to hold an Inquisition, oreven better, a CRUSADE(tm)
Now before you attack me for being a christian hater and a bigot, let's
say that I fuck on every religion that comes around in fron tof me, even my
own....
Also, to aplease those out there who actually want tohear about Cpunk
stuff(imagine that on this newsgroup) here i'll tye stuff in. Sourceror is not
being a bigot, he's simply stating a observed fact. Few of the people who
spurred his call to arms have abandoned this group, while a few stand here
and spout the usual shit,. BUT the Cpunk side isnt innocent either, both sides
have stooped rather low, including myself and a few other readers..
You see, for the same reason that you feel a need to challenge
Sourceror, we fell a need to challenge you.. How can you expect it otherwise?
We dont want to have to pile thru more shit telling us that humans owe their
lives to a greater being who is always right, and that we should give our lives
to him. Wether you are christian or not, you would have been summarily stomped on, just like this thread. I am GAWD, that's it, I make my reality, my brain
takes what my senses pick up and generates my RELITY, if by some stretch of my
preprogramming from parents and society my brain percieves that there is a DOG
then maybe I would agree with you, but I have struggled very hard to look at
things without that programming effect my REALITY. Granted it's not always
succesful, but it seems to be a tad better than trying to justify the actions
of a symbol, which even in it's own scripture is shown as cold and distant and
vindictive.
Cpunks do not follow a greater being, except as I have said before,
themselves, they worship their brain, their reality(at least I do) now you can
say I am sinner and worship idols, but I would say POOH on you since I dont
regard your religions law as applying to me.... Oh well....
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>In article <2f0i9p$7...@panix.com>,
>rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
>
>RM>That isn't the only definition of what a CP is. And just because a
>RM>reference does not state a position does not indicate that it does not
>RM>hold it.
>
>I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but this message is such a pile
>of ignorant garbage, I feel I have no choice.
I wasnt going to reply to this, but since you made the grave mistake
of calling it garbage because it disagreed with you. I was a Xtian, so I know
a tad about the bible, so here I go to show you what *I* believe
>RM>And aside from your lack of logic, Christianity does in fact espouse the
>RM>idea that knowledge is a Really Bad Thing (tm). In Genesis, for example,
>RM>God states, "Of everty tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of
>RM>the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thous shalt not eat of it: for
>RM>in the day that thou eastest therof thou shalt surely die."
>
>RM>Clearly showing that the God of the Christian religion does not approve of
>RM>the free disemination of knowledge. Even of the most basic sort.
>
>First off, you obviously don't understand what this means. Knowledge of
>good AND evil is not a basic thing. I suppose you would object to a world
>that lacks evil?
It is not a basic thing by your definition, but it's present NOW,
and it was present when Jesus was around. The Garden of Eden episode was
just the same as Pandora's escapade, it explained how their came to be a
duality between GOOD and EVIL. It's a metaphor, otherwise their would be a
sword and cheribum around on Earth somewhere, since Eden is gaurded by them.
Cpunk part******** A real Cpunk by my prev definition, would realize that
this hording of information is much like our govrt today, they say if we get
this info, we will do bad stuff with it. Notice the similarity? Has DOG
been replaced by Government? It seems that possibly with so many of our rights
being eroded, perhaps they are making our moral decisions for us? just like a
religion would........Wow, be careful
>RM>> What is it with all these Christian-haters in Cyberspace. Yes, I'll
>RM>> admit, there is corruption in "The Church" but we must remember that
>RM>> EVERYONE sins. Christian means "One who follows Christ." When a priest
>
>RM>Even God.
>
>Wrong, God, by nature, cannot sin.
Of course DOG by nature can not SIN, he made the rules. I cant break
rule that I made up, since I can nullify it whenevr I want. It is MY rule
so I dont have to follow it. Follow my drift?
Cpunk Part***** hmm, Govt makes up rules, they can break them when they want.
Take a look at the dread Clipper chip, they can have the info whenever they wantwhile we are forced into no protection from them. They can kill 50,000 kids in
Vietnam, but we cant even smoke POT....another DOG&GOVT parrelel
>RM>Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
>RM>a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
>
>RM>1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>RM>Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>
>After numerous warnings.
If I warned you before killing you would I be OK? Of course you'll say no, because the rukes dont apply to DOG, but please refer to my previous
statement.....
>RM>2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
>
>That is because they don't exist.
Look at the Bible, it has a WHOLE book on DOG torturing a man. He
was called Job, same title as the book.
>RM>> Many people don't want to follow Christ because they say he was a wimp,
>RM>> and let people beat him up and spit on them. Nothing is farther from the
>RM>> truth! How more (Cyber)punk can you get than telling all the corrupt
>RM>> rules that they're gonna burn in hell? That was like treason back then!
>
>RM>Lest you think I'm some sort of evil and twisted person, I think that
>RM>most (but not the obey the state part) of Christ's philosophy is pretty
>RM>much on the mark and would would lead to a better world if everyone
>RM>followed them.
>
>No, just the usual anti-Christian bigot who likes to flame people.
Well, I think your calling him that is unfounded and constitutes a flamewhich we shall take elsewhere....... Who is flaming who since he has given
support to his evidence, while not attacking a PERRSON, but an argument, but
you have so far given nothing but "the party line" with no backup why we should
take your word? You are the one flaming non-believers, Plaese straighten up so this thread can be inteeligent...
Tommy Usher, it seems thast you are the flamer here, you show little actual knowledge of the Bible beside what has been told you. ALSO RM was exploring
in his posts, he posed many questions which you the flamed down. I dont appreciate that and it just goes to show that you cannot be a Cpunk for real, since you
have no respect for the beliefs of others.
I deleted the rest of the original since it was the usual stuff saying they are wrong if they disagre with the Bible.... Tommy I a hope you realize thatyou are not neccesarily correct(nor wrong for that matter) but your lack of
respect for others belief is a bad example for other Xtians..
>
Gregg Jaeger
>RM>Is "He" God or is "He" Christ? And is "Christ" divine? If so, is he a
>RM>diety? If so, is Christianity a polythiastic religion? Should Christians
>RM>care if it is?
>Jesus Christ was God the Son. There is one God, in three Persons.
I see absolutely no reason to believe *this* is so, though I find the
rest of the post unobjectionable.
>It is no mythology, it is clearly taught in the Bible. Try
>actually reading it sometime. It might suprise you.
You might try reading a good translation of the Qur'an (say Pickthall)
-- you might find it surprising also.
Peace,
Gregg
Gregg Jaeger
>jae...@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>> The actual reference ["kill" vs "murder"] is the text in Hebrew. I suggest
>> asking a religiously well-trained person capable of reading Hebrew. From
>> discussions with Hebrew readers I have become convinced that "kill" is a
>> mistranslation.
>OK, but what text. Torah, Dead Sea Scrolls, or something else.
Torah,
Cheers, and Merry Christmas,
Gregg
Gregg Jaeger
>: jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>: > No, there doesn't. Only one that says "Thou shall not *murder*".
>: > Unfortunately the translation process has distorted the rules.
>
>-- except to qualify one sort of killing (god's sort of killing) as
>justifiable? God doesn't murder, he justs kill people (with justification:
> they were bad). I am not impressed.
That's probably because you've probably never taken seriously the
idea of an afterlife. Given an afterlife, killing is really not
a big deal for God as it amounts simply to a bringing to one to
one's just deserts, murder on the other hand is *evil* and by
definition can only be committed by human beings.
>: Every bigle I've seen uses "kill". Do you have an actual reference
>: > It's pretty tough to read afresh without having being able to read
>: > Hebrew, Greek, etc.
>What is the point here? You can read it afresh by first setting aside
>your belief system and reading it just like you'd read anything else. You
>can read it afresh by studying bible criticism techniques -- or any
>literary critical apparatus. Or just by employing mother wit.
>Hebrew? Greek? Kill? Murder? Smokescreen???
Any translation is a distortion of the words of God as expressed by
his true prophets (to the extent that those messages remain in the
Bible -- the Qur'an is quite pristine and available in the proper
undistorted Arabic). Reading an English Bible means being so much
further from God's message. The more original the text the more
clear (if, of course, you can read the language or have a knowledgable
friend to explain the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, etc.)
Gregg
Sourcerer
: In article <2f8gli$j...@telerama.pgh.pa.us> dje...@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Sourcerer)
: writes:
Somebody wrote:
: >
: >: I suggest that instead of asking if
: >: Cyberpunk and Christianity are compatible, try and figure out which
: >: definitions of each are compatible with which definitions of the other.
: >
: >Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck about finding out what in my ethos is
: >compatible with Christianity. Don't you understand? We don't want to
: >discuss Jesus. We don't want a christianized cyberpunk. This
: >sounds like another infiltration scheme.
: >
: >: I.E. if, for you, the definition of Christianity involves strict obedience to
: >: an authority figure, and the definition of Cyberpunk involves rebellion
: >: against authority, there's going to be a lot of conflict. However, if your
: >: definition of Christianity involves only the belief that Christ came to save
: >: you, and your definition of Cyberpunk involves only an interest in networked
: >: computer technology, then there is no conflict.
: >
: >Uh huh.
: GOOD one sourceror, I agree, I do not care to define Cpunk and Xtianity
: the both suck in my opinion. I dont want to know what Xtians think of Cpunk,
: since I am GAWD, and they dont play a major role in my decision making procces.
: But you must admit, this is the hottest thread to fly thruogh here in awhile..
Well, what's cyberpunk which "involves only an interest in networks and
computer technology"? It's not particularly cp. Any old golf 'hacker' on
AOL fits that bill.
**************************************************************************
Which is my point: the "cyberpunk-christians" are dilluting cp so that it
can mean anything, which means it means nothing at all, which means only
the Christian part means anything, which is why I call it an
infiltration-scheme, which is why I posted the "A Call to Arms" thread.
***************************************************************************
Sorry to hear you think cp sucks, though. I posted a long definition of
cyberpunk to the cyber alts -- forget the name of the thread (not mine):
"distressed...please help" or something. Anyway, find it and read. I'd
be interested in your opinion.
: ALsO, to those who keep atempting to call this an infiltration plot, well
: rememebr that most of the Xtians are to good-natured to
: think they are attempting a plot...
Well, I did call them "pod people". Christianity is viral; some are eaten
up by it and some are just carriers. Some, I believe are deliberate; most
are not -- BUT, being Christians they have no choice (like the above
poster). Because Christianity and cyberpunk do not mix at the very
core level of values and concepts, they **must** dilute cp. All I'm
asking is that they be true to their faith and carry on as before, but to
drop the bs about chrisitanized cyberpunk. If they do that, I welcome
their prescence in the cyber alts.
Sourcerer
: First off, I'm glad the Christians haven't fled alt.cyberpunk. In this
: season of joy and good tidings, it would be sad to have anyone feel
: unwelcome or unloved.
: But.....
But first a rousing chorus of Santa Claus is coming to town.
You better watch out. You better not cry. You better not pout.
I'm telling you why: Santa Claus is coming to town.
He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake.
He knows when you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
He's making a list, he's checking it twice.
He's gonna find out who's been naughty or nice.
Oh, Santa Claus is coming to town!
Sounds like Tommy's theology, don't it?
: tommy...@the-matrix.com (Tommy Usher) writes:
(edits)
Robert:
: >> 2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
: > That is because they don't exist.
: Some others have chimed in to provide a few examples. Job was one. Jonah
: was another. Hmm, I wonder if he only tortures people who's names start
: with "J"? Would this be OK?
Jesus. The crucifixion scenario: "my god, my god why hast thou forsaken me?"
: >>3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
: >> was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
: >> famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
: >> river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
: > Cute, but it is His to do with as He pleases.
: Oh, I'm not arguing that God _can't_ do it. It's obvious that he has.
: All I'm doing is pointing out that he has done things that most people
: would find objectionable.
Dissin the goddess rates high on my list of god's sins.
: >>4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
: > In this case, no.
: How come?
'cause.
(edits)
: >>6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
: > No, this is a crock.
: Right. Refer to other messages for proof.
I'm beginning to doubt he's sexist -- since apparantly the feminine is totally
absent from his supernatural reality; you gotta have it around to oppress
it. It is majorly *unreal* though.
: >>7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
: > He chose them as a means to save all people.
: Proove it. Again, I want references.
Yeah, they **really** saved the Canaanites. Oops! Forgot. They were bad
people. And they *were* warned. They were warned, wern't they?
(edits)
: I don't dislike all Christian's, just you. In fact, sitting next to me
: is one of my best friends, a Jesuit-educated Catholic person. He's been
: helping me with biblical references and providing the Catholic viewpoint
: on how big an idiot you are.
Well, Robert, now you've done it! So, you're being manipulated by a
papist, crypto-satanic, baal-worshiping Catholic. This will confirm the
fundies opinion of you.
: >> Is "He" God or is "He" Christ? And is "Christ" divine? If so, is he a
: >> diety? If so, is Christianity a polythiastic religion? Should Christians
: >> care if it is?
: > Jesus Christ was God the Son. There is one God, in three Persons.
: Right. Again, I don't see why Christians have such a hard time accepting
: the fact that their religion is a polytheastic one. What's the big deal?
: Why is that bad?
Shall we ask him to describe and explain the trinity? Then he can follow
that up with the two natures. In a sentence or two we'll know what sort
of heretic he is. Let's see where he puts the iota (ask your Catholic
friend about this).
(edits)
Tommy, your argument boils down to this: God owns everything and everyone.
We're his property, therefore he can do whatever he wants to us and whatever
he does is good and right because he owns us all.
So far you haven't claimed to be a cyberpunk (to my knowledge), so I won't
tell you to fuck off.
But I'm sure you can recognize that believing you're god's house nigger
and being happy with it is not very cyberpunk.
And now for all you nonbelievers out there, a rousing chorus of...
Row, Row, Row your boat
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily.
Life is but a dream!
Sourcerer's theology.
Sourcerer
: >: jae...@buphyk.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
: >: > No, there doesn't. Only one that says "Thou shall not *murder*".
: >: > Unfortunately the translation process has distorted the rules.
: >
: >-- except to qualify one sort of killing (god's sort of killing) as
: >justifiable? God doesn't murder, he justs kill people (with justification:
: > they were bad). I am not impressed.
: That's probably because you've probably never taken seriously the
: idea of an afterlife.
Yup. I have never taken seriously the idea of an afterlife.
: Given an afterlife, killing is really not
: a big deal for God
What I said.
I suspect, though, that it is a big deal for whomever he kills -- big deal
for friends and family of the deceased as well (assuming they were spared).
Don't really care if its a big deal for god or not (nothing, I gather, is
a big deal for god).
: as it amounts simply to a bringing to one to
: one's just deserts, murder on the other hand is *evil* and by
: definition can only be committed by human beings.
What I said.
Amounts simply and just deserts and by definition -- I'm sure all this makes
sense to a deist. You, I am sure, realize this sounds like lunacy to
someone who is not a deist.
: >: > It's pretty tough to read afresh without having being able to read
: >: > Hebrew, Greek, etc.
: >What is the point here? You can read it afresh by first setting aside
: >your belief system and reading it just like you'd read anything else. You
: >can read it afresh by studying bible criticism techniques -- or any
: >literary critical apparatus. Or just by employing mother wit.
: >Hebrew? Greek? Kill? Murder? Smokescreen???
: Any translation is a distortion of the words of God
And who's fault is that? Who threw the hissy fit at the tower of Babel?
Are you saying that your god did not provide for this -- occurence
(besides gurus). Are you seriously contending that the word of god is
limited to particular languages? Is your salvation dependent on knowing, or
knowing someone, who reads and speaks this or that language (and I assume
that your are required to have faith in their expertise).
: as expressed by
: his true prophets (to the extent that those messages remain in the
: Bible -- the Qur'an is quite pristine and available in the proper
: undistorted Arabic).
Being a set piece, written all at once, by one hand, in historical times,
obviously it is "quite pristine". On the other hand, and by the same
logic "The Book of Mormon" or "The Satanic Verses" are even more pristine.
: Reading an English Bible means being so much
: further from God's message. The more original the text the more
: clear (if, of course, you can read the language or have a knowledgable
: friend to explain the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, etc.)
: Gregg
Well, this is too bizarre for me. This sounds too much like C vs
Assembler. The word of god as bitmap. Contemplating the syllabic
info-stream...the encryption of the word of god in root and stem.
Since this has zero relevance to cyberpunk, I'll leave it to the Christians to
go on about the indwelling of the holy spirit, and the like. Unless
you're claiming Allah is a punk. I think not.
David McIntyre
>>It is no mythology, it is clearly taught in the Bible. Try
>>actually reading it sometime. It might suprise you.
>You might try reading a good translation of the Qur'an (say Pickthall)
>-- you might find it surprising also.
I have. I found it riddled with inconsistancies and diatribes about how
Muslims should take over the world and destroy all who oppose them. But then,
this is coming from my Christian viewpoint.
Robert Mah
> jae...@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>You might try reading a good translation of the Qur'an (say Pickthall)
>>-- you might find it surprising also.
>I have. I found it riddled with inconsistancies and diatribes about how
>Muslims should take over the world and destroy all who oppose them. But then,
>this is coming from my Christian viewpoint.
Sounds sort of familiar to me.
Tommy Usher
af9...@gold.acns.fsu.edu (Andie Foster) writes:
>.@SUBJECT:Re: Christian Cyberpunks N
>.@FROM :af9...@gold.acns.fsu.edu N
>.@MSGID :<2f4me3$5...@mailer.fsu.edu> N
>From:
>Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
>Subject: Re: Christian Cyberpunks
>Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:12:35 GMT
>Message-ID:
In article <2f4me3$5...@mailer.fsu.edu>,
af9...@gold.acns.fsu.edu (Andie Foster) writes:
>xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
>>
>> >1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>> > Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>>
>> Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
>> them to straighten out before He killed them.
>Not a sin, eh? Doesn't there exist, among the 10 commandments, one which
>reads, "thou shalt not kill"? And since the 10 commandments dictate what
>is sin and what isn't...well, you use your logic. But I suppose the Great
>Almighty is exempt from his laws (the old "do as I say, not as I do" adage)
A better translation is "you shall not commit murder." This does not
exclude all killing.
>And isn't it kind of less-than-all-loving to unleash some kind of
>vengeance on "affronts to his work"?
He gave them chances to repent. They in effect chose to die.
>> >4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
>>
>> You're right. Not a sin. It was with Mary's consent.
>Wow, great! So that's how you get off the "thou shalt not covet thy
>neighbour's spouse" rap? (and even though Mary wasn't actually married to
>Joseph, they were engaged and in traditional times, that's as good as
>marriage)
He caused her to conceive, this was not by sexual means.
>Seems to me, it comes down to problems of semantics. The Chrristians
>seem to define their words to apply to two different sets of standards--if
>it's an arguement for them, well, then, those words work just fine. If
>it's an arguement against them, well, those words never apply to god. I
>guess god takes the ultimate employee discount.
No, it comes down to bigotry. I get tired of non-Christians, or to be
more exact, anti-Christians taking out of context and twisting what is
said in the Bible.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--
Tommy Usher
igel...@sound.demon.co.uk (Ian Geldard) writes:
>All through the centuries, theologians and biblical scholars have
>been plagued by problems of translation - or, to be more precise,
>mistranslation. By the time a name, a word, a phrase, a sentence,
>a statement passed from spoken Hebrew or Aramaic, to written Greek,
>to written Latin, and then to one or another modern language, it
>has often become utterly divorced from its original meaning.
>"Jesus" is not a Judaic name but Greek. Among his own people,
>Jesus would have been called Yeshua ben Yusef (Joshua son of Joseph).
This is essentially correct.
>Yeshua was almost certainly not "of Nazareth". An overwhelming body
>of evidence indicates that Nazareth did not exist in biblical times.
>The town is unlikely to have appeared before the third century (the
>time at which the gospels were being written). "Jesus of Nazareth"
>is, in fact, a mistranslation of the original Greek phrase "Jesus
>the Nazarean."
This is not. Recent archaeological evidence indicates that Nazereth
was a striving town at the time. This is no longer a reasonable view.
>This does not denote any specific locality, but refers to his
>membership in a specific Jewish sect of the time which had a certain
>religious and political orientation. Jesus/Yeshua had, of course, no
>idea that he was creating a new religion. He was a devout Jew who
>worked and preached within the context of established Judaic tradition.
Christ was not a Nazerite, which is what you are trying to say He was.
Nazerene does denote locality, Nazerite is the sect you speak of. And
Christ was clearly not a member since He violated several of the rules
including the ones against touching dead bodies and drinking wine.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . IBM really means Invented By Marketing
Tommy Usher
dje...@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer) writes:
>David McIntyre (xy...@imagen.com) wrote:
>: In article <2f0i9p$7...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>: >2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
>: Well, start searching through the Bible and let us know when you come up with
>: something.
>Job.
Bzzzzt, I am sorry, but you lose. Thanks for playing "Name That
Torturer" but the correct answer is Satan, not God. Satan tortured
Job.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . Chernobyl uses Windows NT, shouldn't you?
Tommy Usher
Gee, I have seen an evidence that you even have a brain, based on your
arguments. Hard to be dead when it is non existence.
>Try again, but try to use some reason and perhaps even a semblence
>of logic.
Why should he. You haven't.
>BTW, Try reading the Bible, it may help.
Try to not be such a bigot. And I would suggest you do the same thing.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . Press any key to continue or any other key to quit
Tommy Usher
>.@MSGID : N
>From:
>Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
>Subject: Re: Christian Cyberpunks
>Message-ID: <2f5726$1...@panix.com>
In article <2f5726$1...@panix.com>,
rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
>> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>>Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
>>>a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
>>>1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>>> Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>>Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
>>them to straighten out before He killed them.
>What's not a sin? Killing big bunches of people? Or killing one person
>at a time?
Ah, back for more? Nope, you are wrong.
>Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill". Not, 'thou shalt not kill nice people.'
>Not, 'thout shall not kill innocents.' Not, 'thou shalt not kill without
>warning.' "Thou shalt NOT KILL" (emphasis mine). Simple, straitforward,
>and very, very difficult to misinterpret (except by the mentally disturbed).
Actually, it should read "Thou shalt not commit MURDER"! Keep in mind,
and I hope I am not going over your head, the King James, which you quote
above, is a translation. The original Hebrew is better translated murder,
so all of your claims of misinterpretion are, well misinterpreted.
>BTW, was EVERY first born son an "affront to His work?" He killed
>children. One day old male babies who didn't even have a chance to dirty
>their diapers. How can this be excused?
He warned Pharoh. He had tried several acts to get the fools attention,
and that was the final act, which He tried to avoid, but which Pharoh
made necessary. And I believe, based on the Bible, that those infants
were taken to Heaven.
>Follow this if you can.
>1. God has killed people.
>2. Killing people is a sin.
>3. Therefore, God has sinned.
>Got it?
No, because YOU are simply, unmistakably, and absolutely wrong.
>>>3. He has polluted (OK, not really a sin, but I can't resist). The flood
>>> was ecological destruction on a grand scale. Hordes of locust causing
>>> famine is a good example of early bio warfare. And the blood in the
>>> river Nile couldn't have been good for it's ecoysystem.
>> None of this was pollution. It was all retribution for the evils of man.
>> I'm sure God didn't kill a bunch of honest little fishies to get back at
>> some bad men. :)
>First, I don't care WHY God polluted. Fact is, he did. Read the Bible.
>Exodus 7:21, "And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank,
>and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was
>blood throughout all the land of Egypt."
>God destroyed the most important ecosystem in north-east Africa to "get
>back at some bad men". Conclusion: God has polluted.
A twisted view. And obviously the river returned to normal. It did not
staty "polluted." Even still, it was done in an attempt to avoid what was
eventually done.
>>>4. He created a son without getting married (is this actually a sin?).
>>You're right. Not a sin. It was with Mary's consent.
>So, if the woman consents to bearing a child without marriage, it's OK?
>Tell it to the Pope or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
He did not have sex with Mary. Grow up.
>>>5. He lied (see above, Adam and Eve did not die they ate of tree of
>>> knowledge).
>> They did die ... eventually. If they had not eaten the forbidden fruit,
>> they would never have died.
>You deleted my quote. God says in Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the
>knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day
>that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." ^^^^^^^^^^
Any you haven't answered mine, granted you haven't had the chance. They
died spiritually IN THAT DAY.
>They ate. They did not die that day. God lied.
Ah, but hey did. So I guess you lied instead.
>>> 6. He's sexist. Not a sin, but certainly not P.C.
>> Not sexist. Women just have different and separate roles than men.
>Did you take an English class in High School? Take a look at definition #2
>from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Ah, do you have a brain. Yes, men and women have different roles. When
have you ever seen a man give birth to a baby? Yes, there are some idiots
who would call this sexist.
>sexism -- n. 1. Discrimination based on sex, esp. discrimination against
>women. 2. Attitudes or conditions that promote streotyping of social
>roles based on gender. -- sexist adj. & n.
>Conclusion: God is a sexist.
By man's definition, which is worthless.
>>>7. He's racist -- "chosen people" my ass.
>> He virtually eliminated the "chosen people" in the New Testament, when
>> anyone could find His glory.
>So he lied to the Jews, is that it? Or did Christ lie? One or the other
>sure did.
Nope, neither lied. The Jews are still God's Chosen People. Just ask
Adolf Hitler.
>> He's the kind I worship. But I retain my Cyberpunk ideals, also. I just
>> modify them to suit my needs (definately CP).
>Personally, I could care less if you call yourself CP or not. I'll just
>call you "brain dead" until you can come up with better arguments.
>>> Continued to next message
Tommy Usher
rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
>>Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to argue the finer points of the Bible.
>More like you know you'd lose. The Bible is so chock full of
>contradictions and pure BS that it mmakes a me just weep for joy at the
>thought of smashing mystical-spiritual-invisble-pink-unicorn-bullshit
>beleivers with thier own doctrine, dogma and holy words.
No, what makes you think that? You ever consider in the vacumn you have
between your ears, that he might be telling the truth? Nah, truth is not
a concept you care about. There are not contradictions in the Bible and
I don't get any joy out of shredding the likes of you, just the satisfaction
of having served the Lord.
>> Then again, there are other aspects of Christianity and religion that I
>> feel are unnecessary and outmoded. I leave these parts out of my life.
>Ohhhh...so now you say that you're wise enough to discern which of God's
>wishes are valid or not. That you are smart enough to second guess what
>God was thinking and decide for yourself if you should obey rule #641 but
>not rule #195. I sure wish I was that smart.
I just wish you were remotely smart.
>> No, I'm not everybody's idea of a "good little Christian". A look at my
>> .newsrc would show this. Here's a hint: I have no religious newsgroups
>> selected (unless you count kibology), and I check on a few groups
>> relating to altered states of consciousness.
>Then I suggest you read the Bible with an open mind and decide for
>yourself if God is someone/something that is fit for worship by decent
>people with even a smattering of morality and good taste.
Have you actually read with an open mind? Or did you read it with the
advice of one of those atheist's guides? That is what it sounds like to
me.
>It's not easy. It means abandoning everything that's been hammered into
>your skull by the culture you grew up in. It means reading each
>chapter and verse without drawing upon the analysis of other _people_ and
>making your own critical judgements.
I somehow don't think you did this.
>Read it afresh. You'll discover that God is cruel, callous, uncaring and
>vengeful. He is far from perfect, omniscent, or omnipotent. In short,
>he's not much of a God.
Nope, you certainly did not have an open mind.
>> Just remember: You've got to believe in something, or you'll fall for
>> anything. >--
>You already fell for it, you just don't know it. Believe in yourself.
>Have faith in your own mind, your own "spirit". If you can't believe
>yourself, who can you beleive?
In your case, believing in yourself is deceptive.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . Dinner Not Ready...(A)bort (R)etry (P)izza
Donna Miller
I don't care if you claim to be a Christian Atheist. That's your problem!!
I am a Christian Feminist. Now isn't that a wonderful combination. Wanna talk
about Christian Cyberpunk...hooboy!
I figure that if anyone could be Christian Feminist, someone could be Christian
cyberpunk.
Personally, Mr. Sourcerer, I think that intolerance is anti to anything
remotely cyberpunk--intolerance to Christians as well as intolerance to
any other group. Yes I do tend to go off on the subject of Fundamentalists
and Evangelists but I believe they have the right to their beliefs. I just
don't want them to be pushed on me.
Actually in pushing atheism on me because I want to be part of the cyberpunk
movement is just as bad and inethical as me pushing Christianity
on you(believe it or not 8-o )
That Christians can't be cyberpunks is the most ignorant thing I've heard
on this group. I'll be what I darn well please and I really don't give a
frack whether you think I should be an atheist or a Christian or whatever.
You're the one with the problem.
Donna Miller
mil...@ess.mc.xerox.com
Ian Geldard
>
>Damn. Someone else, I'm afraid I can't remember who, said somthing about
>"Jesus" being a mistranslation of some word that meant "of the Nazarene".
>Or something like that.
As I pointed out in my previous posting on this subject, Jesus is a
mistranslation of the original Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshua. The Nazarene
part refers to the Jewish sect to which Yeshua belonged which has
been mistranslated as "of Nazareth". The town of that name did not
exist at the time Yeshua lived.
TTFN - Ian
--
+---------------------------------------------------+
| | FidoNet 2:254/151 |
| Ian Geldard | Internet igel...@sound.demon.co.uk |
| | CIS 70734,426 |
| | IGC igeldard@gn |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Sourcerer
: In article <2f53no$f...@telerama.lm.com>,
: dje...@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer) writes:
: >Job.
"The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, he is in your power; only spare his
life" (Job 2:6). I doubt if Hitler or Stalin tortured anyone
**personally**. They only issued the orders, like God.
"I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe;
I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
I quote the bible since you have chosen it as the arbiter of
truth. Neither Robert nor I are making up stories.
I think your irritation with us is better directed towards your god.
Robert is making the point that he is not worth worshipping. It appears
you agree with him because it seems you have confused god and satan.
Sourcerer
: A better translation is "you shall not commit murder." This does not
: exclude all killing.
So? What's the difference -- except one word is used to describe murder
which is committed by god?
: >And isn't it kind of less-than-all-loving to unleash some kind of
: >vengeance on "affronts to his work"?
: He gave them chances to repent. They in effect chose to die.
How do you give a newborn infant a chance to repent? I don't recollect
any notification to each Egyptian to repent. Reference chapter and verse,
please.
: He caused her to conceive, this was not by sexual means.
Caused? How? What logic convinces you to believe this fairy tale?
: >Seems to me, it comes down to problems of semantics. The Chrristians
: >seem to define their words to apply to two different sets of standards--if
: >it's an arguement for them, well, then, those words work just fine. If
: >it's an arguement against them, well, those words never apply to god. I
: >guess god takes the ultimate employee discount.
: No, it comes down to bigotry. I get tired of non-Christians, or to be
: more exact, anti-Christians taking out of context and twisting what is
: said in the Bible.
What bigotry? Unless you can come up with answers to our questions which
go beyond "god said so in the bible", we will think you are a bit stupid,
is all.
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>Christ was clearly not a member since He violated several of the rules
>including the ones against touching dead bodies and drinking wine.
>---
>. SLMR 2.1a . IBM really means Invented By Marketing
>
some form of politness, but I just can't now
WHO THE FUCK CARES? WHO THE FUCK CARES?
WHAT IN DOG'S BLUE BLAZES. does this have to do with the argument of
wether Xtians can be Cyberpunks? Nothing.....
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>
>In article <2f4me3$5...@mailer.fsu.edu>,
>af9...@gold.acns.fsu.edu (Andie Foster) writes:
>
>>xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
>>>
>>> >1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>>> > Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>>>
>>> Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
>>> them to straighten out before He killed them.
>
>>Not a sin, eh? Doesn't there exist, among the 10 commandments, one which
>>reads, "thou shalt not kill"? And since the 10 commandments dictate what
>>is sin and what isn't...well, you use your logic. But I suppose the Great
>>Almighty is exempt from his laws (the old "do as I say, not as I do" adage)
>
>A better translation is "you shall not commit murder." This does not
>exclude all killing.
Uh, no their is no difference, except that if you want it to sound good
you call it killing in mercy, like you do, but if it is against you, you call
it MURDER. It's all relative as to who is the victim, and who is the
killer. To show you just how stooopid this sounds to someone like myself, who
holds no belief in your DOG, then I'll say this....... I HATE YOU, I WANT TO
KILL YOU DEAD DEAD DEAD, since I am the GAWD of my REALITY, I am just killing
not murdering.... se how dum that sounds?
>>And isn't it kind of less-than-all-loving to unleash some kind of
>>vengeance on "affronts to his work"?
>
>He gave them chances to repent. They in effect chose to die.
Ok, back to the above statement by moi. I WANT YOU DEAD DEAD DEAD. Do you repent from disobeying me? NOPE? Well then I guess you have choosen to DIENOW, I know we both realize that my above outlash is stoopid, because you do nothold me as your DOG, well your argument sounds as stoopid to me, since I do not
believe in your DOG....
>>Seems to me, it comes down to problems of semantics. The Chrristians
>>seem to define their words to apply to two different sets of standards--if
>>it's an arguement for them, well, then, those words work just fine. If
>>it's an arguement against them, well, those words never apply to god. I
>>guess god takes the ultimate employee discount.
>
>No, it comes down to bigotry. I get tired of non-Christians, or to be
>more exact, anti-Christians taking out of context and twisting what is
>said in the Bible.
PALLY BOY, youhave already shown all of us that you'll only look at
the parts of the BIBLE that you like. You failed to realize that DOG torturd
people(JOB) or that he has killed, or murdered or whatever your religious
spin-doctors want to call it. The BIBLE has no hold on me, I get the majority
of my morals(yep I got them, even us pagan devil worshipers have,em) but
it is a "poem" of sorts to me, a symbolic representation of early peoples
belief systems. Read a bit -o- Joe Campbell and you'll see.
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>In article <2f53no$f...@telerama.lm.com>,
>dje...@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer) writes:
>
>>David McIntyre (xy...@imagen.com) wrote:
>>: In article <2f0i9p$7...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
>>: >2. He has tortured people. Hmm, I can't remember any references offhand.
>
>>: Well, start searching through the Bible and let us know when you come up with
>>: something.
>
>>Job.
>
>Bzzzzt, I am sorry, but you lose. Thanks for playing "Name That
>Torturer" but the correct answer is Satan, not God. Satan tortured
>Job.
Uh, well he gave SATAN complete permission to turture him, and didnt
ole DOG boy say that you should protect others? Well, maybe your Bible trans-
lation doesnt say that, BUT, it really doesnt matter SINCE THIS HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH CYBERPUNK SHIIIIIIIIIIT.
At least ya still got a sense of humer ole tommy boy....
Bruce Arthu Bendler
UHHH, Sourceror is not attacking christianity persey, unless someone
thinks that rebuking tommy'boy is hacking on Xtianity. WHAT we are all trying to say is that in order to uphold the IDEAL definition of CYBERPUNK that we all
have an idea of, YOU CANNOT BE XTIAN AT ALL. Now, her's were we have failed to
calrify things. To have a computer and like technology does not a "CYBERPUNK"
by OUR IDEAL standard, you need to have a specific state of mind, that is not
compatible with giving your life over to a higher being, existant or not. YOU
have to have no DOG in front of your freedom, is that clear? NOW, you can very
well partake in the MEDIAGODS version of Cyberpunk(tm) which is to say, as long
as you have a computer, or get E-mail, or you wear mirrorshades and listen to
shitty NIN, or that you have a leather jacket and like smart drugs, you are a
Cyberpunk(tm) BUT ONLY BY MEDIAGOD standard. OF course you will se that the
readers of this group do not at all agree with the MEDIAGODS version of
Cyberpunk(tm) BUT we have higher standards, WE in no way seek to form a
PRIVATE club, hell I myself probably wouldnt qualify for my very own IDEAL
CYBERPUNK. I strive for that, and that means that I attempt to throw off all
of the reigns that religion, society and government throw on me through the
use of technology. NOW, if you want to be a CYBERPUNK by the MEDIAGOD def.
than go ahead and call yourself one, BUT remember that a true CYBERPUNK by OUR
IDEAL standards puts no DOG before FREEDOM......
OK, anything else?
Sourcerer
Miss, Mrs, or Ms Donna Miller (mil...@marge.wrc.Xerox.COM) wrote:
: Mr. Sourcerer, I don't care whether you are an Atheist or a Pagan or a Christian
: I don't care if you claim to be a Christian Atheist. That's your problem!!
: I am a Christian Feminist. Now isn't that a wonderful combination. Wanna talk
: about Christian Cyberpunk...hooboy!
I am not claiming to be this and that. I find it amusing, this smorgasboard
approach to self-definition though.
: I figure that if anyone could be Christian Feminist, someone could be Christian
: cyberpunk.
Yeah, I figure, too. I'm sure there are Luddite-Technocrats out there as
well.
: Personally, Mr. Sourcerer, I think that intolerance is anti to anything
: remotely cyberpunk--intolerance to Christians as well as intolerance to
: any other group. Yes I do tend to go off on the subject of Fundamentalists
: and Evangelists but I believe they have the right to their beliefs. I just
: don't want them to be pushed on me.
I have expressed no intolerance of Christians -- but you have done that
towards those Christians you disagree with. As I said Christians are
perfectly adequate to the task of hacking each other to pieces. And you
are very, very good at it.
I want the Christians here to express themselves and to criticize
cyberpunk values (if they want to), and I have posted against the idea of
a moderated group to exclude Christian witnessing. I have asked, and I
continue to ask (not having received an answer) those who claim to be
be Christian-cyberpunks to explain how that is possible since the core
values of each are antitheitical. And, in the thread "confused...need
assistance" (I think that's the title), I posted a pretty detailed
discussion of my opinion. So far no follow-ups, though. In fact, my post
that started this all off "A Call to Arms" has never been answered, either.
Instead I've been called a bigot and intolerant and stupid.
And, of course **you** haven't answered my question to you:
You attended a Pagan Circle. Does that make you a Pagan-Christian? Just
like logging onto the net and reading the cyber alts makes you a
Cyberpunk-Christian?
Instead you accuse me of "intolerance" just like most other Christians who
have responded. No answers just accusations. Very nice. But not convincing.
Sorry, but I thought that Christians had a warm regard for values, that
they stood for something. This does not appear to be true on the cyber alts.
: Actually in pushing atheism on me because I want to be part of the cyberpunk
: movement is just as bad and inethical as me pushing Christianity
: on you(believe it or not 8-o )
When have I "pushed atheism" on you? God is a null-concept to me, but not
for you. I haven't the remotest notion how to dissuade you of it, nor
would I want to This is **not** any sort of atheist position. Any atheist
out there will back this up (or read the atheist FAQ). The concept of god
is incomprehensible to me. That is not atheism.
: That Christians can't be cyberpunks is the most ignorant thing I've heard
: on this group.
Why is it ignorant? Why? Lets discuss this. I am truely tired of
Christians making these absolute statements and not supporting their
position with any argument.
: I'll be what I darn well please and I really don't give a
: frack whether you think I should be an atheist or a Christian or whatever.
Its pretty obvious you'll be what you want to be, and I don't give a fuck
what congery of attitudes and glamour attract you at any particular moment
in your life. You configure this and that and become a
Pagan-Christian-Feminist-Cyberpunk or whatever mosaic you want (but I'll
bet you'll piss off pagans, christians, feminists and cyberpunks who are
dedicated to what they are).
Some of us are a tad bit more stable as to our character and philosophy,
and those of us who live within the cyberpunk ethos are asking those of
you who call yourselves Christian-cyberpunks to explain how you manage to
resolve the discrepancies.
However, since you obviously are so chameleonlike in your values, I won't
ask you.
: You're the one with the problem.
The problem was my unexamined belief that the Christians here had values
they would assert and defend.
Where did you acquire that hurt and defensive moral tone of yours?
: Donna Miller
: mil...@ess.mc.xerox.com
What makes you think I'm a "Mr."?
Bruce Arthu Bendler
((((((((((((I HAVE EDITED PARTS SO AS NOT TO WASTE YOUR TIME OR NET NOISE))
>>xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
>
>>> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
>>>>Yes, it's true. God, the father of Christ has sinned -- or at least done
>>>>a lot of Really Bad Things (tm).
>
>>>>1. He has killed people, and even commited genocide. The destruction of
>>>> Sodam. The death of all first born sons in Egypt. Etc.
>
>>>Not a sin. He destroyed an affront to His work: humankind. He even warned
>>>them to straighten out before He killed them.
>
>>What's not a sin? Killing big bunches of people? Or killing one person
>>at a time?
>
>Ah, back for more? Nope, you are wrong.
TELL ME WHY HE IS WRONG DAMMIT!!!!! Dont just say it SHOW it...
HOW the hell can ypou expect to be taken seriously in this debate if you just
go and say YOU'RE WRONG. It has no back up, NONE. FLAME ME CHRISTSAAKES, as
long as you SHOW me how he is WRONG.
And use concrete facts, direct quotes from the BIBLE showing he is wrongI do not takle your WORD as shit, so use what you cherish the BIBLE to show
EXPLICITELY why he is WRONG......
>>Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill". Not, 'thou shalt not kill nice people.'
>>Not, 'thout shall not kill innocents.' Not, 'thou shalt not kill without
>>warning.' "Thou shalt NOT KILL" (emphasis mine). Simple, straitforward,
>>and very, very difficult to misinterpret (except by the mentally disturbed).
>
>Actually, it should read "Thou shalt not commit MURDER"! Keep in mind,
>and I hope I am not going over your head, the King James, which you quote
>above, is a translation. The original Hebrew is better translated murder,
>so all of your claims of misinterpretion are, well misinterpreted.
IT makes no fraggin difference, MURDER or KILL, its all depends on
who is doing the telling of the story. A LIFE WAS LOSS REGARDLESS, that is
wrong no matter how the hell(oops) you justify it. DEATH=DEAD=DEAD=KILL=MURDER
>>Follow this if you can.
>
>>1. God has killed people.
>>2. Killing people is a sin.
>>3. Therefore, God has sinned.
>
>>Got it?
>
>No, because YOU are simply, unmistakably, and absolutely wrong.
SHOW ME DOGDAMNIT, WHY IS HE WRONG. You can not be taken seriously
with such fraggin dumb arguments, WHERE the frag is your backup. HOW IS HE
WRONG, show me show me show me show me........
>
>
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>In article <2f5995$7...@panix.com>,
>rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
>>xy...@imagen.com (David McIntyre) writes:
>
>>>Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to argue the finer points of the Bible.
>
>>More like you know you'd lose. The Bible is so chock full of
>>contradictions and pure BS that it mmakes a me just weep for joy at the
>>thought of smashing mystical-spiritual-invisble-pink-unicorn-bullshit
>>beleivers with thier own doctrine, dogma and holy words.
>
>No, what makes you think that? You ever consider in the vacumn you have
>between your ears, that he might be telling the truth? Nah, truth is not
>a concept you care about. There are not contradictions in the Bible and
>I don't get any joy out of shredding the likes of you, just the satisfaction
>of having served the Lord.
Tommy pal. if you call him stoopid one more time, WHAM, my GAWD is gonnawhoooop your DOG's arse. WELL, truth is SUBJECTIVE, just like murder/kill.
I have no beliefe in your DOG, so I do not find the BIBLE as truth. That doesntmean either of us are stooopid, its just that we have been raised differently,
and have sdifferent backgrounds. Now the fact that you have repeatedly made
statements such as "You're stupid." "you have no brain", and "NO you're wrong"
without giving any REAL backup, or far that matter any back up, THEn that makes
YOU stupid, not your DOG, but your feeble attempts at debating, which always
seem to drop you to the level of namekalling. You will save no souls nor
rest easy when you call every friggin person who disagrees with you a dummy, or
an brainless dolt, as you seem to like doing. I do not hate you because you're
a Xtian, I HATE you because you make disgustingly elementary arguments dropping
you to the "playground" level of debate... Now if you make a turn around and
show some reason for your statements maybe I wont dislike you so much...
>>> Then again, there are other aspects of Christianity and religion that I
>>> feel are unnecessary and outmoded. I leave these parts out of my life.
>
>>Ohhhh...so now you say that you're wise enough to discern which of God's
>>wishes are valid or not. That you are smart enough to second guess what
>>God was thinking and decide for yourself if you should obey rule #641 but
>>not rule #195. I sure wish I was that smart.
>
>I just wish you were remotely smart.
ANOTHER prime exam-ple of your weakness, in both stand, and debateing
ability. Do you always defend your beliefs by calling the others names?
>>> No, I'm not everybody's idea of a "good little Christian". A look at my
>>> .newsrc would show this. Here's a hint: I have no religious newsgroups
>>> selected (unless you count kibology), and I check on a few groups
>>> relating to altered states of consciousness.
>
>>Then I suggest you read the Bible with an open mind and decide for
>>yourself if God is someone/something that is fit for worship by decent
>>people with even a smattering of morality and good taste.
>
>>You already fell for it, you just don't know it. Believe in yourself.
>>Have faith in your own mind, your own "spirit". If you can't believe
>>yourself, who can you beleive?
>
>In your case, believing in yourself is deceptive.
Ok, tommy, well her's where my beliefs and Cpunk come into play. OK
first to be a Cpunk(which is what this newsgroup is about) you must not ut
any HIGHER or LOWER being ahead of your freedom of choice. Now you can have
an interest in computers, and even call yourself a Cpunk, but to be a REAl
Cpunk as we in the group have an IDEAL standard of, you must throw away all
of the beliefs in DOG, that restrict oyu, and your freedom.
NOW, you may believe that DOG liberates you, but still, that is
anotyher being in front of your freedom that excludes you from being a
IDEAL CPUNK. ---
Robert Mah
As I read his posts, Tommy became increasingly shrill, he started with
reasonable replies such as the following in responce to my accusing God of
murder...
> He gave them chances to repent. They in effect chose to die.
However, he soon, degenerated into posts such as...
> No, what makes you think that? You ever consider in the vacumn you have
> between your ears, that he might be telling the truth? Nah, truth is not
> a concept you care about. There are not contradictions in the Bible and
Why are you gettin so personally angry? If you truly have faith in Christ
then my accusations should not phase you. Faith is the core of religion,
and that faith should hopefully spur you on to gather evidence to
strengthen your beliefs not generate hatred or aninosity.
That said, I still await a reasoned reply to why killing thousands of
Egyptian male babies is not murder. This is, IMHO, the most important of
the sin's I have accused God of. A real justification would be interesting.
Finally, as to my personal beleifs, I wrote, to someone else...
>> Then I suggest you read the Bible with an open mind and decide for
>> yourself if God is someone/something that is fit for worship by decent
>> people with even a smattering of morality and good taste.
And while the last phrase is a bit gratuitous, I still stand by it.
However, you replied with...
> Have you actually read with an open mind? Or did you read it with the
> advice of one of those atheist's guides? That is what it sounds like to me.
and in another post...
> Nope, you certainly did not have an open mind.
I used to beleive strongly in God and Christ. I prayed, and actually
thought God was listening -- in one way or another. However, one day I
actually read the Bible. From cover to cover. It was an eye opening
experience in many ways. After reading it, and after much private thought
and emotionally wrenching years, I finally came to the conclusion that God
does not exist. This conclusion did not come easily and it did not come
quickly. It did not come from discussions with athiests, it came from
my own analysis and belief that one should trust oneself.
That said, your last statement...
> In your case, believing in yourself is deceptive.
I think sums up one of the fundamental the difference between CP and
Christianity. Christians seem to believe that they cannot trust their own
selves. CP's on the other hand believe that trusting yourself is first
and foremost. I used to trust that the Lord would give me guidance. Now
I rely on myself to figure out how to best live my life.
Another fundamental difference is that CP believe that information
wants to be free. Christian's however believe that certain forms of
information are, in fact, evil and should be eliminated. I can't say I
agree completely with the former, but I sure don't agree at all with the
latter.
tom crimi
> compatible with giving your life over to a higher being, existant or not. YO
> have to have no DOG in front of your freedom, is that clear? NOW, you can ve
> well partake in the MEDIAGODS version of Cyberpunk(tm) which is to say, as lo
> as you have a computer, or get E-mail, or you wear mirrorshades and listen to
> shitty NIN, or that you have a leather jacket and like smart drugs, you are a
> OK, anything else?
>
Yeah, tell me how you're freedom isn't limited by the being that
created the Universe (GOD)? CAn you do whatever you want regardless of
the laws of physics set up by God in the creation of the Universe? I
only ask that you do some small deed like traveling faster than light,
walking through a solid object or whatever else you would like to do in
contrast to the laws of physics and THEN you are a cyberpunk by your
definition. Otherwise you are being limited by a more powerful being..
willingly (as death would put an end to your problems :).
Enjoy....
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I think.. therefore I'm sober?"
"Some see the glass as half empty, others as half full
I see the glass as being too big"
A3000/25......And lovin' every minute of it!
I./\/.FILTRATOR ---> I...@phantom.com
Bruce Arthu Bendler
>68...@brahms.udel.edu (Bruce Arthu Bendler) writes:
>
>> compatible with giving your life over to a higher being, existant or not. YO
>> have to have no DOG in front of your freedom, is that clear? NOW, you can ve
>> well partake in the MEDIAGODS version of Cyberpunk(tm) which is to say, as lo
>> as you have a computer, or get E-mail, or you wear mirrorshades and listen to
>> shitty NIN, or that you have a leather jacket and like smart drugs, you are a
>> OK, anything else?
>>
>
>
> Yeah, tell me how you're freedom isn't limited by the being that
>created the Universe (GOD)? CAn you do whatever you want regardless of
>the laws of physics set up by God in the creation of the Universe? I
>only ask that you do some small deed like traveling faster than light,
>walking through a solid object or whatever else you would like to do in
>contrast to the laws of physics and THEN you are a cyberpunk by your
>definition. Otherwise you are being limited by a more powerful being..
>willingly (as death would put an end to your problems :).
universe. I dont believ it, SO how can I be following something I dont believe
exists? Well I cant, I know the laws of physics are good representations of
the "RULES" but rememebr even they were made up by people(the actual newtonian
laws, not the efects) You see to me GOD did not set up the rules of the
i do not believe he did. HE DOES NOT LIMIT ME, H DOESNT EXIST TO ME. Now I
say to me, becasue I dont want you to think that I am trying to push something
down your throats. but in my world, and the world of many others GOD does not
exist, he is a symbol, a ancient outdatd symbol, used to make peoiple behave,
to make them function well in a repressive society. I can break any law your
DOG put's in front of me, cause he has put NOINE in front of me, he does not
exist, he cannot limit me.
Sourcerer
: Yeah, tell me how you're freedom isn't limited by the being that
: created the Universe (GOD)? CAn you do whatever you want regardless of
: the laws of physics set up by God in the creation of the Universe? I
: only ask that you do some small deed like traveling faster than light,
: walking through a solid object or whatever else you would like to do in
: contrast to the laws of physics and THEN you are a cyberpunk by your
: definition. Otherwise you are being limited by a more powerful being..
: willingly (as death would put an end to your problems :).
:
: Enjoy....
Eliminate the concept of god from your universe and nothing changes -- except
your assumption of superior access to the truth. Or...
...explain how the (so-called) "laws of physics" are "set up"? Explain
the mechanism of "creation"? Or...
...admit that these terms are empty when you realize they have no
referents in the real world.
Then take a course in physics.