Unique Earth
Frank A. S.
>On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:17:09 +0800, "Frank Schierenberg"
><NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>
>And it's why such psychology produces no wisdom.
>
Everything is always shit with you. "No wisdom" without a 'because'?
Tell us then what DOES "produce wisdom" in your view.
>> There are no two people exactly alike
>>and therefore the golden rule will have as many interpretations as there
>>are people.
>
>Thus rendering it meaningless.
In that case you just claimed, that love is meaningless. Great going
John!!!!
A rule of any kind is a standard,
>something to be aimed at if not attained. If you can interpret a rule
>to suit yourself it isn't a rule anymore. If you can aim in any
>direction you please, the general population had better get out of
>range.
>
That is why Christ was against living by the Jewish law, for it could be
circumvented by the smart and the sly. Caring love cannot and is always
true.
>>To expect psychological / spiritual uniformity is of course
>>ludicrous.
>
>Quite. Therefor to expect wisdom from that source is also ludicrous.
>
Cite your own source then. Or do you want to go so far as to claim the
word "wisdom" is meaningless?
>
>> At the same time to say: Forget about being good or decent, kind
>>and loving, because it can't be defined accurately and uniformly is even
>>more ludicrous. Your "scientific realism" derails here, John.
>
>Science has nothing to say about morality. Philosophers have much to
>say on the subject however, and without apealing to scripture and
>imaginary gods.
>
The "imaginary god" is of YOUR imagination.
>>>>You seers-
>>>>>of-mysticism within scripture seldom agree on what you see. That's why
>>>>>I don't believe.
>>>>
>>>> Interpretations by their very nature are inconsistent,
>>>
>>>And therefor valueless.
>>>
>> That is YOUR interpretation, which I interpret to be indeed
"valueless".
>
>So demonstrate how inconsistent interpretations can be of value. Show
>how the inconsistencies don't matter. Interpret the Bible's wisdom on
>the subject of birth control for me as I asked. Show me how it
>benifits mankind to have dissent on the issue.
>
Sorry to disappoint you, but the Bible does not mention "birth control".
However Christian consensus is, that once you permit ANY interference in the
reproductive process, the interference WILL progressively increase and
eventually result in a "Brave New World". Also birth control trends to
promote licentiousness, and when sex comes cheap and easy, it tend to lose
it's exhilaration and emotional fulfillment. It becomes just another
consumption item in a boring life.
>> That's the philosophical base of main line churches, but it is not mine,
>>nor of fundamentalists who believe in the leading of the holy
>>spirit, while each studies the Scriptures himself.
>
>And then spend the rest of the time despising each other.
>
>>So yes, there will be
>>diverse interpretations, but each respects the other's interpretation
>>because we all know it to be sourced by the same Holy Spirit in accordance
>>with a person's needs and readiness to receive.
>
>Oh come on now! You know better than that! Such tolerance is
>practically non-existent.
>
Not in YOUR world, for you will always look for and cease on the
disharmonious. But in MY world the harmonious predominates, for that is the
Christian aim and purpose. Because in fundamentalist circles anyone's
interpretation of scripture, as the Holy Spirit leads, is regarded as valid
as any other, including those of the most learned of theologians. The only
reference permitted is the Bible itself, never a commentary, therefore
interpretations can vary widely without raising an eyebrow. Actually, more
than accurate interpretation, enthusiasm for the faith and love of the Lord
are counted as the most important.
>> The results are innumerable
>>full gospel churches, all essentially the same in their total reliance on
>>the Bible as the sole authority, yet diverse in their interpretation.
>
>And each certain their rivals are headed streight to hell. And ALL of
>them are sure you're headed in that direction.
>
Again, totally untrue and just something you WANT to believe.
>>Denominations are formed for administrative purposes and as minimal
control
>>to assure that ONLY the Bible is being used as the authoritative text.
>
>Now that's the best laugh I've had in a week! Are you sure we're
>living on the same planet Frank?
>
Tell me about your church. Mine are that way.
>>Otherwise full gospel churches are largely autonomous. That's the way it
>>should be all the way through Christendom, and will be if the present
>>trend continues.
>
>On Mars.
>
Only in your imagination.
>>>> Some interpretations
>>>>are perceived as better than others, depending on one's "maturity in the
>>>>spirit".
>>>
>>>Or depending on his bigotries and biases, prejudices and
>>>preconceptions, motives ulterior and otherwise.
>>>
>> Sure, anything is possible, if one has absolutely no faith in human
>>nature and wants desperately to be negative about it. Is that your aim?
>
>Its my experience.
>
It's your purpose in life to find and highlight the negative. He who
seeks will find, and you must have done a very thorough search yielding lots
of data, but keeping it secret, except for the results which are invariably
negative. Right?
>>>>>Bad axiom. 'Existence' couldn't care less about you.
>>>>
>>>> Metaphor.
>>>
>>>Bad metaphor.
>>>
>> Just YOUR usual, negative interpretation. All I said was: I believe
>>existence means well by me. It is good English using a figure of speech,
and
>>has no literal meaning.
>
>As I said. Meaningless.
>
To you, yes, but not to most other people on this planet. I cannot help
you lack of comprehension, and your conviction of the "meaninglessness of
life".
>
>Wisdom can be demonstrated Frank. It produces results. It works. If
>you can't deliver, you ain't got it.
>
But I demonstrate it and it has tremendous results in my life. Can I
help that you are blind to it?
>>>
>> Of course it is. The Bible does not contain wisdom BECAUSE it was
>>written BCE, but it is assumed to contain wisdom.
>
>Why? Give me ANY reason.
>
Because of its reputation as a book full of wisdom.
>> All art is not only wholly true but contains wisdom as well,
>
>Comes automatically with the designation apparently. Now why should we
>believe that?
>
>> the art for the interpreter is to
>>recognize it and interpret it as such. It's a given that many will not see
>>it and either have to believe interpreters or if they don't,
>>keep on looking blankly at, to them "meaningless" art.
>
>I have seen authors shaking their heads in disbelief because some
>airheaded reviewer has read into their work meanings never intended.
>That must be the same technique you advocate.
>
I will bet my bottom dollar, that most visual artists are quite
flabbergasted reading their art critic's reviews and never knew that their
work had such deep meanings, pro or con.
>>>That's why it's useless. Seeing what you want to see in a search for
>>>truth is self-delusion.
>>>
>> You delude yourself all day long believing advertisers, that their
>>products are superior, or, as in this case that their ideas / ideals,
>>method, philosophy and interpretation are superior.
>
>I may. But I may also disbelieve, and I might even disbelieve one who
>in fact has a superior product. It is an accurate observation that
>advertisers put into their ads things that they know their readers
>want to see. That they will interpret favorably.
>
>> Even testing them cannot assure you of absolute truth.
>
>But it's a better way than "interpreting".
>
>> Think what would happen, if you were to insist
>>on not only wanting to check out the complete history of some medicine
which
>>has been prescribed, but do all the testing yourself again to make sure
it's
>>effective and safe.
>
>Doctors do that all the time. They just don't tell the patient.
Non sequitur. You are no doctor and the doctor is NOT the one taking the
medicine.
>
>> Most often however, you will choose to go by reputation and precedent,
>>rather than testing out everything yourself. In other words you choose to
>>believe and trust others on faith.
>
>Truncate that sentence my friend! It should read: "In other words you
>choose to believe and trust others." No faith involved.
>
I have faith that my wife is faithful to me. Why? Because my faith is
based on extrapolations of past experiences. You will NOT succeed in
invalidating the word "faith" and get it removed from our vocabulary, like
so many atheists want to.
>
>>Personally I would rather trust a text
>>book like the Bible, than the interpretation of it from even the most
>>learned theologians.
>
>The more easily to delude yourself.
>
Your "delusion" is another man's salvation.
>>>> One usually has a notion for what one is looking for.
>>>
>>>And therefor finds it. Has the concept of clinical detachment never
>>>been explained to you? Ever heard of double blind tests? They are
>>>specifically designed to eliminate just that sort of thing.
>>>
>> See above. How many double blind tests do you conduct yourself, to
rule
>>out all "bigotries and biases, prejudices and preconceptions, motives
>>ulterior and otherwise", only to substitute your own, probably?
>
>That tells me you DON'T know what a double-blind test is. Its main
>purpose is just that, to eliminate your own biases.
>
Since you don't believe 'love' exists, because it cannot be precisely
defined and codified, devise a DB test to test its existence. We will see
whether you can eliminate your own biases.
>>>> All art is "inerrant".
>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>>>
>> Irrelevant opinion.
>
>Then expalin how it is sense. Define "art" and define "inerrant".
>
Art is anything created for the edification of humanity. Anything
created for edification is always 'inerrant'.
>>>>Revelation is a somewhat abstract word painting
>>>
>>>Revelation (with the R capitalized) refers to divine revelation. God
>>>speaking to us.
>>>
>> Glad you believe that. However most of it will remain meaningless,
till
>>the Holy Spirit sees fit to enlighten.
>
>Then its useless and best ignored.
>
Only to those who ignore the Holy Spirit.
>>>>and I don't see you fulminating against abstract art, nor against art
>>>>critics who wax eloquent in their interpretation of it.
>>>
>>>They're not proposing a moral code for me to live by, or trying to
>>>take over the minds of our children with their lies.
>>>
>> But they do. Check children's literature.
>
>Children's literature is abstract art? Proposing a moral code?
>
Last I read it was mostly didactic, and none of the art work was in any
way representative of reality.
>
>An interpreting scripture is what a priest does for a living. A whore
>follows a more honest occupation than either of them.
>
Again, your utterly foul interpretation without rhyme not reason.
>
>That's a copout. Those who sought the power and control were aided in
>their effort by that damn book and the bigotries and xenophobia it
>encouraged.
>
That "damn book" has Christ's commandment: "Love each other as I have
loved you" in it. It takes a pathalogical negatifvist to read "bigotry and
xenophobia" into that.
>> That is the way it is in politics. Read Machiavelli
>>and learn about the reasons for forcing a particular belief system on a
>>population.
>
>And the Bible and the Koran do so facilitate that effort don't they?
>
What other belief systems do you advocate?
>
>I haven't noticed, in the history books, any indication that a fear of
>gods has done any better.
>
What would have happened without "fear of God" is not testable and you
have no data to support your contention.
>>>> Common viewpoints are not the aim of interpretation.
>>>
>>>Ergo, understanding is not the aim of interpretation.
>>
>> Equating "common viewpoints" with "understanding" is ludicrous.
>
>I'd like to see you trying to sell that one to even a first year
>philosophy class. Let's tease it out. Twelve philosophers seek
>understanding. Assume one has actually found it. If the other eleven
>do not share his viewpoint, then they haven't found understanding.
>A common viewpoint does not guarantee understanding, but lack of a
>common viewpoint indicates that understanding is limited.
>
Not at all. The wisest of men hold, that the more you know, the more
your realize how little in known.
>> Failure is part of a grading system, where you have to specify what
the
>>pass mark is. Failing that, it only failed from your point of view. Or do
>>you consider that a "common viewpoint"? I certainly don't think it is.
>
>Society does. That's how we make laws.
>
Society doea NOT make laws covering civil behaviour, such as kindness,
caring, love, courtesy, respect etc. etc.
>
>And the Holy Spirit never fails . . . to incite dissent and
>intolerance.
>
Don't you ever tire of making the invariabley negative judgment about
everything? You are such a downer. In your skin I would be chronically
depressed.
>
>Which is why I reject their efforts along with the rest.
Of course. That is expected from you.
But YOU said
>they were rejecting Revelations in toto. You dropped the ball.
>
RCC rejecting Revelations? I don't know they do. I would not be able to
drop any ball on that one.
>
>By results. Christianity offers to teach us good moral standards, so
>lets grade them:
>
>1. Slavery- took Christianity 18 centuries to realize slavery is evil,
>and the protestant and Catholic churches were still practicing it in
>my country until the 1960's. Grade - F
Bullshit.
>2. Birth control- in an age when the global population is reaching
>critical mass, the religions with the most influence in third world
>contries (Catholicism and Islam) both come out against birth control.
>Grade- F
Those are human institutions. The holy scriptures from either of them
has nothing to say on the matter.
>3. Abortion- the churches can't agree yea or nay on that issue
>either. Grade- F
Same as above.
>4. Justice- The repentant true believer will be forgiven Christianity
>teaches, while the innocent unbeliever will suffer eternal torment.
>Grade- F
>
Bullshit!
>> Especially when it's not "scientific realism", but deals with
>>abstract concepts of behavioural standards, I.e. care, love, honesty,
>>loyalty, patience, generosity of spirit etc. etc.
>
>I go by the standards of the civilization in which I live, as do most
>of us. That's all we CAN do. My idea of care, love, honesty,
>loyalty, patience, generosity of spirit etc. is not my father's, nor
>was his that of my grandfathers, and I'm sure back there somewhere one
>of my ancestors would have agreed with that malignant SOB Jonathan
>Edwards.
>
Incomprehensible non sequitur.
>> Why would anyone need to be "hooked by con-men" to believe in the
>>desirability to live up to abstract concepts of good behaviour and have
>>their conscience (in the form of an incorruptible God) judge their
>>performance?
>
>The don't NEED to be, but they WILL be!
>
Only a paranoid negativist thinks that way.
>>You sure know how to interpret, -but only and always
>>negatively, don't you?
>
>Read some history.
>
If you look for the negatrive, the history books are full of it, but
there is a great deal more positive stuff to be found. Sorry you missed it.
>>>
>> "All theists"? A small minority may be.
>
>The dissent is the indicator, and it's widespread.
>
Only in your mind. Probably from reading too much sensational tabloid
gossip.
>>Most are quite able to decode the essentials into facts.
>
>They just can't agree on what they are. Is Baptism nescessary? Faith?
>Works? Faith and works? Must you be Born again? Will Mormans get to
>heaven? JW's? Seventh Day Adventists? Catholics? Jews?
>
That is NOT for us to decide. You work on your own perfection and your
relationship with the Lord, and not on all those other issues which are
really quite periferal.
>>The rest they are willing to accept on faith.
>>Like Rush Limbough decodes political clap trap "his way", we all take such
>>stuff with a sense of humour, knowing there are other interpretations
>>extant, which may be just as valid.
>
>Emphasis on the MAY.
>
Of course! We are not robots for Pete's sake.
>>>>Some interpretations are better than others.
>>>>Therefore dissent is essential for spiritual growth.
>>>
>>>Can you grow spiritually by deluding yourself and others?
>>>
>> How do you "delude yourself" about what it means to be a good person
>>within the Biblical parameter?
>
>Very, very easily.
>
Then you have no idea what the Bible is all about.
>>I care not much for a man's religion
>>whose dog and cat are not the better for it.
>>- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
>
>What about his slave?
>
I always thought Lincoln emancipated slaves.
>
Frank A. S.
Custom wil reconcile people to any atrocity;
and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.
- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
John Ings
>>And it's why such psychology produces no wisdom.
>>
> Everything is always shit with you.
Not everything Frank! Just the stuff I get from you! :->
>"No wisdom" without a 'because'?
Let's recount the exchange in full:
I said-
>>>The best you
>>>can do is that meaningless claim that "we're all right in our own way"
>>>or "I've found my truth which is just different from your truth".
You responded:
>> That's the way psychology works.
And to that I replied:
>And it's why such psychology produces no wisdom.
Now you say you want a "because"?
BECAUSE Frank, there is only ONE truth. That's why it's truth.
You can't have truth that's individual, because then it isn't a
standard.
>Tell us then what DOES "produce wisdom" in your view.
Why? The argument is not about what produces truth, but rather what
truth is.
>>> There are no two people exactly alike
>>>and therefore the golden rule will have as many interpretations as there
>>>are people.
>>
>>Thus rendering it meaningless.
>
> In that case you just claimed, that love is meaningless. Great going
>John!!!!
You just can't figure out the difference between subjective and
objective can you Frank? Love is an emotion, it is subjective, it can
be different for every individual. A rule is an objective definition.
It must be the same for everyone, or it's useless.
>>A rule of any kind is a standard,
>>something to be aimed at if not attained. If you can interpret a rule
>>to suit yourself it isn't a rule anymore. If you can aim in any
>>direction you please, the general population had better get out of
>>range.
>>
> That is why Christ was against living by the Jewish law,
Except he wasn't, as he stated quite clearly (if you believe Matthew)
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the
prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one
letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all
is accomplished.
> for it could be circumvented by the smart and the sly. Caring love
>cannot and is always true.
Love is a subjective emotion. It is not an objective matter and the
word truth in relation to it has no meaning.
>>>To expect psychological / spiritual uniformity is of course
>>>ludicrous.
>>
>>Quite. Therefor to expect wisdom from that source is also ludicrous.
>>
> Cite your own source then.
Why? I'm not the one advancing sources of wisdom. You are.
> Or do you want to go so far as to claim the word "wisdom" is meaningless?
I'd go so far as to say its rather hard to define. The dictionary has
it thus:
wis·dom (wiz_duhm) n.
1. the quality or state of being wise; sagacity, discernment, or
insight.
2. scholarly knowledge or learning.
3. wise sayings or teachings; precepts.
4. a wise act or saying.
Now I will concede, at the outset, that the scholarly knowledge or
learning definition is not the one we're talking about. A man can have
much learning and not be wise. Having much insight and ability to
discern would be closer to the issue don't you think?
>>Science has nothing to say about morality. Philosophers have much to
>>say on the subject however, and without apealing to scripture and
>>imaginary gods.
>>
> The "imaginary god" is of YOUR imagination.
No, I don't imagine any gods. Jesus is the god of the Christian's
imagination, and you all imagine him differently.
>>So demonstrate how inconsistent interpretations can be of value. Show
>>how the inconsistencies don't matter. Interpret the Bible's wisdom on
>>the subject of birth control for me as I asked. Show me how it
>>benifits mankind to have dissent on the issue.
>>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but the Bible does not mention "birth control".
You don't disappoint me. I know it doesn't mention the subject. Its a
book about how to live a moral life in Bronze Age Judea and Iron Age
Rome. It's not about the 20th century.
>However Christian consensus is, that once you permit ANY interference in the
>reproductive process, the interference WILL progressively increase and
>eventually result in a "Brave New World".
No that's NOT the Christian concensus, as is easily demonstrated.
Christians buy more birth control devices than any other religious
group.
> Also birth control trends to promote licentiousness,
"Among the world's more peculiar perversions is chastity" a cynic once
remarked.
>and when sex comes cheap and easy, it tend to lose
>it's exhilaration and emotional fulfillment.
It should therefor be forbidden to the greatest degree possible?
Librarians should take care not to shelve books by female authors next
to those by male authors, unless the two are married? Believe it or
not, Victorian librarians used to do that.
> It becomes just another consumption item in a boring life.
Yeah. It's more fun if it's a guilty sin huh? Women should wear ankle
length voluminous gowns and head coverings as they do in Islamic
countries, so that a glimpse of hair or leg becomes a turn-on? Or even
hairy legs?:)
>>>So yes, there will be
>>>diverse interpretations, but each respects the other's interpretation
>>>because we all know it to be sourced by the same Holy Spirit in accordance
>>>with a person's needs and readiness to receive.
>>
>>Oh come on now! You know better than that! Such tolerance is
>>practically non-existent.
>>
> Not in YOUR world,
The real one . . .
>for you will always look for and cease on the
>disharmonious. But in MY world the harmonious predominates, for that is the
>Christian aim and purpose. Because in fundamentalist circles
Which isn't the real world, but a fantasy land where Creationists grow
row on row . . .
>anyone's
>interpretation of scripture, as the Holy Spirit leads, is regarded as valid
>as any other,
That sure isn't what I see here in these newsgroups over the past
decade or so Frank.
> including those of the most learned of theologians. The only
>reference permitted is the Bible itself, never a commentary, therefore
>interpretations can vary widely without raising an eyebrow.
Or even approaching anything resembling reason . . .
> Actually, more
>than accurate interpretation, enthusiasm for the faith and love of the Lord
>are counted as the most important.
Now that statement I will accept without a quibble.
I suspect that this is indeed just how you arrive at you exegesis.
>>> Just YOUR usual, negative interpretation. All I said was: I believe
>>>existence means well by me. It is good English using a figure of speech,
>>>and has no literal meaning.
>>
>>As I said. Meaningless.
>>
> To you, yes, but not to most other people on this planet.
I'm quite sure the majority or readers of the English language would
read "no literal meaning" to be the same as "meaningless".
>>Wisdom can be demonstrated Frank. It produces results. It works. If
>>you can't deliver, you ain't got it.
>>
> But I demonstrate it
No you don't. You just claim so.
> and it has tremendous results in my life. Can I help that you are blind to it?
Delusion can produce tremendous results too.
How are we to discern wisdom from delusion Frank?
Remember that double-blind system mentioned in other posts?
That's how. Apply that scientific method to prayer, astrology, fortune
telling, tea leaf reading or any other superstition and they fail the
test Frank. They don't work, except psychosomatically. They're
placebos. Sugar pills.
>>> Of course it is. The Bible does not contain wisdom BECAUSE it was
>>>written BCE, but it is assumed to contain wisdom.
>>
>>Why? Give me ANY reason.
>>
> Because of its reputation as a book full of wisdom.
It is assumed to contain wisdom because of its reputation as a book
full of wisdom. Tautology exemplified.
>>I have seen authors shaking their heads in disbelief because some
>>airheaded reviewer has read into their work meanings never intended.
>>That must be the same technique you advocate.
>>
> I will bet my bottom dollar, that most visual artists are quite
>flabbergasted reading their art critic's reviews and never knew that their
>work had such deep meanings, pro or con.
If they didn't put meaning in, it ain't there.
You guys are tea-leaf reading.
>>> Think what would happen, if you were to insist
>>>on not only wanting to check out the complete history of some medicine
>>>which has been prescribed, but do all the testing yourself again to make sure
>>>it's effective and safe.
>>
>>Doctors do that all the time. They just don't tell the patient.
>
> Non sequitur. You are no doctor and the doctor is NOT the one taking the
>medicine.
So I AM doing all the testing yourself again to make sure
it's effective and safe aren't I? And regularly some patients prove
allergic to the prescription.
>>> Most often however, you will choose to go by reputation and precedent,
>>>rather than testing out everything yourself. In other words you choose to
>>>believe and trust others on faith.
>>
>>Truncate that sentence my friend! It should read: "In other words you
>>choose to believe and trust others." No faith involved.
>>
> I have faith that my wife is faithful to me.
No, you have trust. Trust that can be withdrawn if she cheats. Faith
must be maintained even if she does cheat, over and over.
> You will NOT succeed in
>invalidating the word "faith" and get it removed from our vocabulary, like
>so many atheists want to.
The theist's faith is what's invalid, not the word.
>>> How many double blind tests do you conduct yourself, to rule
>>>out all "bigotries and biases, prejudices and preconceptions, motives
>>>ulterior and otherwise", only to substitute your own, probably?
>>
>>That tells me you DON'T know what a double-blind test is. Its main
>>purpose is just that, to eliminate your own biases.
>>
> Since you don't believe 'love' exists, because it cannot be precisely
>defined and codified,
Strawman alert!!!
>>>>> All art is "inerrant".
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense.
>>>>
>>> Irrelevant opinion.
It remains nonsense until you define the word you correctly enclosed
in quotes to indicate a non-standard meaning. What the heck do you
mean by "inerrant"? Certainly not "without error".
>>Then expalin how it is sense. Define "art" and define "inerrant".
>>
> Art is anything created for the edification of humanity. Anything
>created for edification is always 'inerrant'.
So lets see now- Hitler's Mein Kamph and the propaganda of Goebbels
were both created for the "edification" of the German people. They
were therefor "art" and "inerrant"? What a ludicrous concept!
By that definition any lie is valid.
>>>>Revelation (with the R capitalized) refers to divine revelation. God
>>>>speaking to us.
>>>>
>>> Glad you believe that.
Believe what? That such a thing exists? I don't.
>>That's a copout. Those who sought the power and control were aided in
>>their effort by that damn book and the bigotries and xenophobia it
>>encouraged.
>>
> That "damn book" has Christ's commandment: "Love each other as I have
>loved you" in it. It takes a pathalogical negatifvist to read "bigotry and
>xenophobia" into that.
I'm talking about what it DOES, not what it says.
>>I haven't noticed, in the history books, any indication that a fear of
>>gods has done any better.
>>
> What would have happened without "fear of God" is not testable and you
>have no data to support your contention.
There are no atheist societies? What about Buddhist cultures? I have
not noted that they are particularly warlike.
>>A common viewpoint does not guarantee understanding, but lack of a
>>common viewpoint indicates that understanding is limited.
>>
> Not at all. The wisest of men hold, that the more you know, the more
>your realize how little in known.
Non sequitur. The latter sentence is correct in its assertion, but
irellevant to the issue.
> Society doea NOT make laws covering civil behaviour, such as kindness,
>caring, love, courtesy, respect etc. etc.
It certainly does.
Civil behaviour- by civil I presume you mean polite. Same as courtesy
and respect. Ever hear of contempt of court?
Kindness- heard of cruelty to animals?
Caring- heard of laws respecting child neglect?
Love- heard of breach of promise?
>>And the Holy Spirit never fails . . . to incite dissent and
>>intolerance.
>>
> Don't you ever tire of making the invariabley negative judgment about
>everything?
The Holy Spirit isn't everything. There you go with the sweeping
generalities again.
>> But YOU said
>>they were rejecting Revelations in toto. You dropped the ball.
>>
> RCC rejecting Revelations? I don't know they do.
But you said they did.
>>By results. Christianity offers to teach us good moral standards, so
>>lets grade them:
>>
>>1. Slavery- took Christianity 18 centuries to realize slavery is evil,
>>and the protestant and Catholic churches were still practicing it in
>>my country until the 1960's. Grade - F
>
> Bullshit.
Fact.
>>2. Birth control- in an age when the global population is reaching
>>critical mass, the religions with the most influence in third world
>>contries (Catholicism and Islam) both come out against birth control.
>>Grade- F
>
> Those are human institutions.
They're religions.
> The holy scriptures from either of them has nothing to say on the matter.
That's what I'm on about Frank! The way the Bible, which has nothing
to say about a lot of vital issues, and erroneous things to say about
many more, still inspires its idolaters to malignant behaviour. It
facilitates bigotry and hatred with its muddly ease of interpretation
to suit the reader. If someone was in favor of frying little babies
for breakfast they could probably find a Biblical passage to support
their belief.
>>3. Abortion- the churches can't agree yea or nay on that issue
>>either. Grade- F
>
> Same as above.
The bible is proposed by Christians as a moral guide.
So guide already!
>>4. Justice- The repentant true believer will be forgiven Christianity
>>teaches, while the innocent unbeliever will suffer eternal torment.
>>Grade- F
>>
> Bullshit!
Christian theology. Widely held, even if you don't hold it yourself.
>>> Why would anyone need to be "hooked by con-men" to believe in the
>>>desirability to live up to abstract concepts of good behaviour and have
>>>their conscience (in the form of an incorruptible God) judge their
>>>performance?
>>
>>The don't NEED to be, but they WILL be!
>>
> Only a paranoid negativist thinks that way.
Or a historian.
>>>You sure know how to interpret, -but only and always
>>>negatively, don't you?
>>
>>Read some history.
>>
> If you look for the negatrive, the history books are full of it, but
>there is a great deal more positive stuff to be found. Sorry you missed it.
Point it out then.
>>> "All theists"? A small minority may be.
>>
>>The dissent is the indicator, and it's widespread.
>>
> Only in your mind. Probably from reading too much sensational tabloid
>gossip.
Nah! Just newsgroups.
>>>Most are quite able to decode the essentials into facts.
>>
>>They just can't agree on what they are. Is Baptism nescessary? Faith?
>>Works? Faith and works? Must you be Born again? Will Mormons get to
>>heaven? JW's? Seventh Day Adventists? Catholics? Jews?
>>
> That is NOT for us to decide.
But you do argue about it incessantly.
>ou work on your own perfection and your
>relationship with the Lord, and not on all those other issues which are
>really quite periferal.
That's not what I read here in this forum, or others like it.
>>> How do you "delude yourself" about what it means to be a good person
>>>within the Biblical parameter?
>>
>>Very, very easily.
>>
> Then you have no idea what the Bible is all about.
Nor does anyone else.
>>>I care not much for a man's religion
>>>whose dog and cat are not the better for it.
>>>- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
>>
>>What about his slave?
>>
> I always thought Lincoln emancipated slaves.
Belatedly, and somewhat reluctantly. Read your history.
## A historian's first duties are sacrilege and the mocking of false
gods.
Alan Sindler
> > That is why Christ was against living by the Jewish law,
>
> Except he wasn't, as he stated quite clearly (if you believe Matthew)
> Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the
> prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
> 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one
> letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all
> is accomplished.
Here we have the great contradiction that fundamentalists find themselves in:
When someone points out verses in the Old Testament that are troublesome (such
as a woman having to marry her rapist, or the condoning of slavery), the
response is: "Oh, that was the old law, but we're under the new law (New
Testament), now.
Really? How do you reconcile that excuse with the above verse? Can't do it,
can ya?
Curiously yours,
Alan
mdhjwh
Modern evolutionary psychology has a great deal to say about
morality, loyalty , love , fidelity etc.
JOHN H.
PS. If you will excuse an observation from an outsiders
perspective- this debate is being carried out in a most uncharitable
and "unchristian" manner.
"
John Ings
wrote:
>"Science has nothing to say about morality."
>Wrong ,wrong,wrong.
>Modern evolutionary psychology has a great deal to say about
>morality, loyalty , love , fidelity etc.
That assumes you consider psychology a science.
And what the heck is "modern evolutionary psychology"?
>PS. If you will excuse an observation from an outsiders
>perspective- this debate is being carried out in a most uncharitable
>and "unchristian" manner.
Do you consider lying to be unchristian? Then yes, you're right,
because Creationists are liars, bigtime!
## The ICR believes in the Bible! Especially in Job 13:7
John Ings
Ings) wrote:
>>PS. If you will excuse an observation from an outsiders
>>perspective- this debate is being carried out in a most uncharitable
>>and "unchristian" manner.
>
>Do you consider lying to be unchristian? Then yes, you're right,
>because Creationists are liars, bigtime!
On further consideration, I think my last statement was unfair to
Frank, because I have not had any Creationist crap from him.
Since I am an atheist, you can expect an "unchristian manner" from me.
If Frank has one too, it doesn't bother me, we both use an abrasive
debating style and I don't twit him about it being "unchristian" for
that reason.
## We may forgive those who bore us, but never those we bore.