Astronomy persecution and murder ?
RA95
starting a new one.
<mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:9asggj$p0s$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu...
| "RA95" <xRI...@Qwest.Net> writes:
| >
| >| >And by the way, pattern and pratice of the church in murdering
| >| >people over astronomy, sort of lends credibility to them murdering
| >| >people over shape of the earth.
| >How the hell should I know how well history has recorded all the
| >victims
|
| In other words you have no clue as to what happened in the
Inquisition.
http://www.setileague.org/editor/brunoalt.htm
| So did you not read this web page, or did you not comprehend it?
I think SOMEBODY here isn't comprehending something,
The larger subject being dealt with is whether the church and
christianity has had a retarding effect on science and intellectualism.
I claim it has, and you want to refute me by getting buried in details
and tangents. I say we can't know with any certainity how many people
were murdered for their scientific views, and I previously posted a
clip from Encarta about Bruno who was murdered by the church for charges
including heresy. And you dispute me by posting a link that contains:
"The one key fact of the study of Bruno's life is that we do not
actually know the exact grounds of his conviction on charges of heresy.
The simple reason is that the relevant records have been lost. This is
quite unlike the state of affairs in the later trial of Galileo, where
we have extensive documentation including the forgeries that played a
role in the case against him. In the case of Bruno, we must seek clues
in contemporary accounts and in an examination of his writings."
That's the point. Nobody can know fully what was going on, (although
the following Britannica clip makes it sound like his astronomy was an
important factor.), only that a climate of oppression and potential
hideous consequences existed for people whose views were not liked by
the church at that time. You want to nitpick over unknowable details,
implying that since Bruno's KNOWN astronomical views weren't
particularly insightful in our current day views, the church couldn't
have persecuted him over them. I don't think that's sensible.
As to flat / sphereical earth, it does look like that
was NOT a big issue for the church, and that people were not oppressed,
beaten, tortured and burned to death over it the way coutless others
were for being witches, warlocks, "moving earthers" etc. Well, I'm glad.
However, I didn't mention the flat earth subject out of nowhere.
The apparent misinformation on this is widespread and has been around
for nearly 200 years. The Baker UC Berkeley history of cosmology course
outline notes made for a credible appearing source on this subject. I
suggest you email Baker
and find out why he says what he says in them. And then tell us.
As for Bruno:
Encyclopedia Britannica re:
Bruno, Giordano
born 1548, Nola, near Naples
died Feb. 17, 1600, Rome
original name Filippo Bruno, byname Il NolanoItalian philosopher,
astronomer, mathematician, and occultist whose theories anticipated
modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the
infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected
the traditional geocentric (or Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively
went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which
still maintained a finite universe with a sphere of fixed stars. Bruno
is, perhaps, chiefly remembered for the tragic death he suffered at the
stake because of the tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox
ideas at a time when both the Roman Catholic and the Reformed churches
were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian and Scholastic principles in their
struggle for the evangelization of Europe.
<break>
denounced him to the Venetian Inquisition in May 1592 for his heretical
theories. Bruno was arrested and tried. He defended himself by admitting
minor theological errors, emphasizing, however, the philosophical rather
than the theological character of his basic tenets. The Venetian stage
of the trial seemed to be proceeding in a way that was favourable to
Bruno; then, however, the Roman Inquisition demanded his extradition,
and on Jan. 27, 1593, Bruno entered the jail of the Roman palace of the
Sant'Uffizio (Holy Office). During the seven-year Roman period of the
trial, Bruno at first developed his previous defensive line, disclaiming
any particular interest in theological matters and reaffirming the
philosophical character of his speculation. This distinction did not
satisfy the inquisitors, who demanded an unconditional retraction of his
theories. Bruno then made a desperate attempt to demonstrate that his
views were not incompatible with the Christian conception of God and
creation. The inquisitors rejected his arguments and pressed him for a
formal retraction. Bruno finally declared that he had nothing to retract
and that he did not even know what he was expected to retract. At that
point, Pope Clement VIII ordered that he be sentenced as an impenitent
and pertinacious heretic. On Feb. 8, 1600, when the death sentence was
formally read to him, he addressed his judges, saying: "Perhaps your
fear in passing judgment on me is greater than mine in receiving it."
Not long after, he was brought to the Campo de' Fiori, his tongue in a
gag, and burned alive.
Influence.
Bruno's theories influenced 17th-century scientific and philosophical
thought and, since the 18th century, have been absorbed by many modern
philosophers. As a symbol of the freedom of thought, Bruno inspired the
European liberal movements of the 19th century, particularly the Italian
Risorgimento (the movement for national political unity). Because of the
variety of his interests, modern scholars are divided as to the chief
significance of his work. Bruno's cosmological vision certainly
anticipates some fundamental aspects of the modern conception of the
universe; his ethical ideas, in contrast with religious ascetical
ethics, appeal to modern humanistic activism; and his ideal of religious
and philosophical tolerance has influenced liberal thinkers. On the
other hand, his emphasis on the magical and the occult has been the
source of criticism as has his impetuous personality. Bruno stands,
however, as one of the important figures in the history of Western
thought, a precursor of modern civilization.
xx end Ency Brit quote
In other words, the sick clowns of the church murdered a valuable man
who contributed much to human knowledge, and who had done harm to no
one.
RA
Lloyd Bogart
<xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote:
> This is getting to deep in the existing thread for posting, so I'm
> starting a new one.
>
>
> <mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu> wrote in message
> news:9asggj$p0s$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu...
> | "RA95" <xRI...@Qwest.Net> writes:
> | >
> | >| >And by the way, pattern and pratice of the church in murdering
> | >| >people over astronomy, sort of lends credibility to them murdering
> | >| >people over shape of the earth.
>
> | >How the hell should I know how well history has recorded all the
> | >victims
> |
> | In other words you have no clue as to what happened in the
> Inquisition.
>
> http://www.setileague.org/editor/brunoalt.htm
> | So did you not read this web page, or did you not comprehend it?
>
> I think SOMEBODY here isn't comprehending something,
Did Bruno do *anything* remotely related to archaeology?
Are you going to post anything remotely related to archaeology?
There *are* religious and historical newsgroups.
We don't need a new thread as much as you might believe.
Tron Furu
RA95 skrev i meldingen
<9asmg1$8ra$1...@sshuraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
>This is getting to deep in the existing thread for posting, so I'm
>starting a new one.
>
name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, we now in writing give final
sentence and condemn you, Michel Servet, to be bound and taken to Champel
and there attached to a stake and burned alive with your book, as much writ
by your hand as printed, until your body is reduced to ashes; and so you
shall finish your days to give an example to others who would be inclined to
commit the like.'(Taken from the verdict read aloud in front of Geneva's
Town Hall, 27 October 1553).
He denied that 1 = 3, i.e. the mathematical possibility of trinity.
TF
RA95
news:bogart.lloy-09...@138.49.112.162...
This is part of an on-going discussion. If you don't like it, don't read
it.
RA
RA95
news:bogart.lloy-
|
| There *are* religious and historical newsgroups.
|
| We don't need a new thread as much as you might believe.
This is part of an ongoing discussion. If you don't like it, don't read
it.
RA
Brian M. Scott
[...]
>The larger subject being dealt with is whether the church and
>christianity has had a retarding effect on science and intellectualism.
Much too broad a question: you have to specify when. The position in
the 12th c., for instance, was completely different from the position
in the 16th and 17th c., but you're focussing almost exclusively on
the later period, about which there really isn't much argument. For
the earlier period, however, a case can be (and has been) made that
the church actually stimulated science.
[...]
> As to flat / sphereical earth, it does look like that
>was NOT a big issue for the church, and that people were not oppressed,
>beaten, tortured and burned to death over it the way coutless others
>were for being witches, warlocks, "moving earthers" etc.
Countless? Current best estimate is ~40,000 (male and female)
witches, mostly in the 16th and 17th c. And most of the death
sentences were imposed by secular courts; church courts generally
preferred non-lethal penalties.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>'[... Having] God and the Holy Scriptures before our eyes, speaking in the
>name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, we now in writing give final
>sentence and condemn you, Michel Servet, to be bound and taken to Champel
>and there attached to a stake and burned alive with your book, as much writ
>by your hand as printed, until your body is reduced to ashes; and so you
>shall finish your days to give an example to others who would be inclined to
>commit the like.'(Taken from the verdict read aloud in front of Geneva's
>Town Hall, 27 October 1553).
>
>He denied that 1 = 3, i.e. the mathematical possibility of trinity.
Even assuming that he brought mathematics into it to suggest that that
was the reason he was executed is a gross distortion of the case.
http://www.firstuunashville.org/clarksville/Sermons/servetus.htm
is a quite sympathetic rendering of the history.
It provides the entire condemnation including:
he printed secretly a book in Vienne of
Dauphiny [] He confesses that in this book he called believers in the
Trinity Trinitarians and atheists. He calls this Trinity a
diabolical monster with three heads. He blasphemes detestably
against the Son of God, saying that Jesus Christ is not the Son of
God from eternity.
No mention of 1=3
If anybody wants to dig them up his books were:
On the Errors of the Trinity and The Restitution of Christianity
Servetus admitted authorship of On the Errors of the Trinity
though he denied its infectious qualities. He defended his views on
the Trinity, repudiated the charges of being a pantheist and of
denying immortality, and admitted without reservation his
condemnation of infant baptism.
In a Calvinist but not entirely unsympathetic review of Servetus:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch16.htm
It is not surprising that this book gave great offence to Catholics
and Protestants alike, and appeared to them blasphemous. Servetus
calls the Trinitarians tritheists and atheists.[63]1048 He
frivolously asked such questions as whether God had a spiritual wife
or was without sex.[64]1049 He calls the three gods of the
Trinitarians a deception of the devil, yea (in his later writings), a
three-headed monster.[65]1050
Robert Morphis
RA95
"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
| Much too broad a question: you have to specify when. The position in
| the 12th c., for instance, was completely different from the position
| in the 16th and 17th c., but you're focussing almost exclusively on
| the later period, about which there really isn't much argument. For
| the earlier period, however, a case can be (and has been) made that
| the church actually stimulated science.
I'm sure that church attitudes did differ over time. Some the Protestant
sects seem (to me at least) as having developed into encouraging
science and non-supernaturalist thinking, in recent centuries.
Similarly, Calvinism almost seems like a "business" religion. (Some
people are predestined to do well, this is reflected in their material
success on earth, so if you're destined for heaven, do well in business
etc.) However, it's hard to read historians like Wells and MacMullen
for instance, and not come away with the idea that intellectualism was
damaged by christianity. Do you have any good overview books in mind on
this topic?
| Countless? Current best estimate is ~40,000 (male and female)
| witches, mostly in the 16th and 17th c. And most of the death
| sentences were imposed by secular courts; church courts generally
| preferred non-lethal penalties.
Around 100,000 people were tried for witchcraft, and about 50 pct of
those were executed. "Countless" thousands, not millions like some new
age "historians" like to imply.
The point within this discussion, of church effect on
intellectualism / science, is how much of that sort of intrusion,
inquisition, punishment, torture, and death by extremely painful means
does it take to create an environment where people are repelled versus
attracted to "maverick" pursuits of new knowledge and inventiveness?
I've seen people shut down and conform just at the whiff of a threat to
them getting a raise, much less being tortured to death.
It's evident that what the church was encouraging and doing,
if done nowadays, would get them hunted down, prosecuted and sent to
prisons and insane asylums.
RA
Paul J. Gans
At this stage of the game more like continuing spam. Could
you take your personal disputes to your own normal
newsgroups? We've got enough of our own, thank you.
---- Paul J. Gans
Craig Levin
RA95 <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote:
>I'm sure that church attitudes did differ over time. Some the Protestant
>sects seem (to me at least) as having developed into encouraging
>science and non-supernaturalist thinking, in recent centuries.
>Similarly, Calvinism almost seems like a "business" religion. (Some
>people are predestined to do well, this is reflected in their material
>success on earth, so if you're destined for heaven, do well in business
>etc.) However, it's hard to read historians like Wells and MacMullen
>for instance, and not come away with the idea that intellectualism was
>damaged by christianity. Do you have any good overview books in mind on
>this topic?
Try Lewis' _The Discarded Image_, perhaps?
Granted, he's not talking about astronomy and geography as his
major subjects, but he is talking about the formation of the
mediaeval world picture.
> The point within this discussion, of church effect on
>intellectualism / science, is how much of that sort of intrusion,
>inquisition, punishment, torture, and death by extremely painful means
>does it take to create an environment where people are repelled versus
>attracted to "maverick" pursuits of new knowledge and inventiveness?
>I've seen people shut down and conform just at the whiff of a threat to
>them getting a raise, much less being tortured to death.
> It's evident that what the church was encouraging and doing,
>if done nowadays, would get them hunted down, prosecuted and sent to
>prisons and insane asylums.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The FDA had Wilhelm Reich's
books on Orgone Therapy put to the torch as recently as the
fifties, and it was Reich, not the civil servants, who got thrown
in jail. Granted, he was selling quack medical devices, and
Orgone Therapy is, AFAIK, bogus, but that's the kind of thing you're
talking about, yes?
Craig Levin - *not* a backer of Reich
--
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html
cle...@rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin
Brian M. Scott
>"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
[...]
> However, it's hard to read historians like Wells and MacMullen
>for instance, and not come away with the idea that intellectualism was
>damaged by christianity. Do you have any good overview books in mind on
>this topic?
No; it's peripheral to my interests.
>| Countless? Current best estimate is ~40,000 (male and female)
>| witches, mostly in the 16th and 17th c. And most of the death
>| sentences were imposed by secular courts; church courts generally
>| preferred non-lethal penalties.
>Around 100,000 people were tried for witchcraft, and about 50 pct of
>those were executed.
But not by the church -- or rather, churches, since this is largely a
post-Reformation phenomenon.
[...]
> It's evident that what the church was encouraging and doing,
>if done nowadays, would get them hunted down, prosecuted and sent to
>prisons and insane asylums.
Again, that depends on when and where (and on whose laws you have in
mind nowadays).
This is off-topic for at least sci.arch and s.h.m.; followups set.
Brian M. Scott
RA95
news:PEoA6.21
.
|
| > This is part of an ongoing discussion. If you don't like it, don't
read
| > it.
|
| At this stage of the game more like continuing spam. Could
| you take your personal disputes to your own normal
| newsgroups? We've got enough of our own, thank you.
Address your complaints to whoever originally added this part of a
sci.archaeology thread into soc.history.medieval - I didn't. At this
point, I don;t know what NG's people are following this from.
By the way are you the soc.history.medieval moderator?
RA
RA
Day
power in Europe, something would have been.
Stoicism was a well known alternative, with many supporters
among
the emperors and administrations. Christians have charged
that it
did not exceed because it made unrealistic demands of men,
whereas
the church forgave them.
However, I dont find it unrealistic at all. However, Epictetus
put
it most succinctly: You did not make your body, God did. You
thus,
are not the owner thereof, but only steward. Wherefore do you
then
claim to own the body of another?
He also pointed out, that while someone may own your body, he
can
not own your mind. You may not be free to express, but you
are
still free to think.
A stoic slave, they soon learned, was an oxymoron. It was too
much
trouble to get them to bend their will and break the spirit.
In like
manner, a Stoic slave master was likewise a hypocrit. The
Meditations
of Marcus Aurelius are conspicuously silent on the issue of
slavery.
However, we see in St. Paul's letter to Philemon, where he
beseeches
a master to take back Onesimus. Impliticitly recognizing
slavery
and slave owner rights.
Had Christianity not compromised on this issue, it would not
have
been accepted by the ruling class, and wouldda went no where.
Had
the Romans been able to deal with the issue they could have
gone
on to encourage much more innovation, and prolly would still
be in
power.
But Christianity is but the symptom of a lack of character,
not the
cause of it. And had not they tolerated slavery, and modified
it
into serfdom, someone else would have, as they did in China.
Doug Weller
xRI...@Qwest.Net says...
> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:PEoA6.21
>
> .
> |
> | > This is part of an ongoing discussion. If you don't like it, don't
> read
> | > it.
> |
> | At this stage of the game more like continuing spam. Could
> | you take your personal disputes to your own normal
> | newsgroups? We've got enough of our own, thank you.
>
> Address your complaints to whoever originally added this part of a
> sci.archaeology thread into soc.history.medieval - I didn't.
>
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Curt Emanuel
(snip)
>
> The larger subject being dealt with is whether the church and
> christianity has had a retarding effect on science and intellectualism.
> I claim it has, and you want to refute me by getting buried in details
> and tangents. I say we can't know with any certainity how many people
> were murdered for their scientific views, and I previously posted a
> clip from Encarta about Bruno who was murdered by the church for charges
> including heresy.
This is a topic that interests me so I'll post a response based almost
strictly on the medieval period.
IMO the Church was a very positive force in the early and into the high
Middle Ages, and a slight to moderate negative force in the later Middle
Ages.
In the Early MA the Church was the single unifying force in Western
Europe. The 5th-8th centuries were a fairly violent time (not as much as
most seem to believe but violent nonetheless). I think it's fair to say
that the Church was the single institution moderating this for that
period.
First, the Church greatly discouraged warfare between Christians.
Second, clerics were responsible for saving almost all of the knowledge
of the ancient world. Now there was a great deal that they didn't save -
the Church was fairly contemptuous of the Roman material world that
proceeded them, but no worse than, say, the Romans for the Greeks. But
they did save a lot.
The Church was also the only institution with any type of educational
tradition. If you were a wealthy landowner; you sent your sons to be
tutored by a cleric, or hired him to live in your household. The same
was true for the nobility. And while the depth of education didn't even
begin to compare with that gained by the Roman nobility, it did include
basic literacy and numeracy.
In addition Churches and monastic orders cared for the poor, housed the
sick and infirm, and even helped to cutivate previously undeveloped
land.
So I think a solid case can be made for the Church's positive influence
during the early Middle Ages.
During the later Middle Ages that changed. I can't put an exact date on
it but I've always believed that it was during the 12th or early 13th
century. The Church retained many positive influences. It continued to
act as a pacifying force. It continued to be the major educational
institution. It continued to act as a charitable institution for the
poor. And it continued to care for the sick, elderly and infirm.
But it enacted the Crusades, which I believe to be a negative. And as
literacy rates rose in Western Europe, so did free thought. Suddenly a
sizable minority of the populace was able to gain their ideas from
sources other than religious texts - or they were able to read the
religious texts themselves and reach conclusions that disagreed with
orthodox Christianity.
With the Reconquest in Spain a cultural diffusion from Iberia to the
rest of Europe occurred. In the 13th and 14th centuries a wealth of
ancient texts were translated from Arabic into Latin. Aristotle, Plato,
Ptolemy and others reappeared in Western Europe. Rational, philosophical
thought had returned - with all of the problems that entailed.
The Church reacted. Freedom of religion? It wasn't even a concept. There
had always been heresy and witchcraft in Medieval Europe. But the
frequency had been low enough that the Church hadn't felt threatened. If
someone believed that they had flown with witches and killed people they
were given 7 years' penance. Heretics suffered similarly and were
welcomed back once they renounced their views.
But beginning in the 12th century the number of heresies exploded. I see
no coincidence in the fact that heresy had been very common in the Roman
Empire, had dropped drastically with its fall, and reappeared in the
high and late middle ages. As education levels rose, and as non-clerics
gained access to the scriptures, divergent points of view appeared.
And so an aggressive prosecution of heresy and, ultimately, the
Inquisition, was born. An effort to preserve the purity of religious
thought by exterminating all other religious thought.
The Church acted similarly regarding intellectual thought. Pope Gregory
IX banned all use of Aristotle until it was reviewed and purged of
erroneous and dangerous ideas. Individuals such as Abelard and Boethius
were condemned by the Church. Matters of science were not accepted
unless they were first approved by the Church.
(Large qualifier follows)
The problem is that quite often the negative unfluences of the Church
have been greatly exaggerated. During the Medieval period the
Inquisition followed strict evidentiary and judicial procedures.
Spectral evidence was not allowed and even after conviction heretics
were allowed to recant, do penance, and be re-accepted into the Church.
The total number of those executed through the Inquisition DURING THE
MEDIEVAL PERIOD is much, much less than has been claimed by many. And
convictions for witchcraft were extremely rare until the 16th century.
Did the Church seek to control theological thought? Absolutely. And if
you consider (as I do) a rich and diverse tapestry of thought and
beliefs to be positive, then you have to consider that a negative
sociatal factor. But the concept of the Medieval Inquisition as
butchery, or even as something extremely wrong (once you do away with
the idea of religious freedom - which didn't exist during that time) is
insupportable.
The intellectual restrictions have also been exaggerated. Yes, the
Church did keep an eye on what was being taught, but the overwhelming
majority of teachings were irrelevant to Christianity. The flat Earth
discussion we've just had is one. The danger for the Church was in
totally unrestricted rational (philosophical) thought. The Church was
generally OK with people defining natural laws SO LONG AS THEY
RECOGNIZED THAT THESE LAWS DID NOT APPLY TO GOD. Philosophers regularly
came up with different laws of nature, but were careful to note that
these did not preclude the Creation account given in Genesis, or the
possibility of the Resurrection, etc., since God was above all Law and
could basically do what they wanted.
I'm very uncertain if this is on-topic for either of the archaeology
groups but I'll leave it for one of the members of those groups to set
follow-ups accordingly. Hopefully this extremely broad and general
overview will generate some discussion - then maybe we can move on to
specifics.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Lloyd Bogart
> I'm very uncertain if this is on-topic for either of the archaeology
> groups but I'll leave it for one of the members of those groups to set
> follow-ups accordingly. Hopefully this extremely broad and general
> overview will generate some discussion - then maybe we can move on to
> specifics.
>
> --
> Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Thanks for the thought. But it's damneer impossible to
get folks to stop crossposting to inappropriate groups,
once begun. (It actually takes a few seconds away from
the considerable time needed to compose a lengthy post.)
(archaeology groups removed from header)
Lloyd
*****
Ken Down
(Snipped most of a long and cogent post)
> But it enacted the Crusades, which I believe to be a negative.
From the moral point of view, I would agree with you. From other points of
view, however, the Crusades were positive. People returning from the Middle
East are supposed to have brought back a flood of new ideas and products
which improved life in Europe. Even the disastrous Fourth Crusade, when
Constantinople was sacked, is supposed to have resulted in many manuscripts
being brought to the West - probably, given the literacy of the average
soldier, for the cover rather than the contents, but still . . .
Ken Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news from
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| the Middle East with David Down and
================================= "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
patrick burke
"Ken Down" <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.76e0544a68....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <3AD261...@accs.net>, Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net>
wrote:
>
> (Snipped most of a long and cogent post)
> > But it enacted the Crusades, which I believe to be a negative.
>
> From the moral point of view, I would agree with you. From other points of
> view, however, the Crusades were positive. People returning from the
Middle
> East are supposed to have brought back a flood of new ideas and products
> which improved life in Europe. Even the disastrous Fourth Crusade, when
> Constantinople was sacked, is supposed to have resulted in many
manuscripts
> being brought to the West - probably, given the literacy of the average
> soldier, for the cover rather than the contents, but still . . .
>
Actually a good deal of the looting was by very literate clerics, who
went straight for the relics and religious artifacts.
Bill Kent
: "Ken Down" <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:na.76e0544a68....@argonet.co.uk...
:> In article <3AD261...@accs.net>, Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net>
: wrote:
:>
:> (Snipped most of a long and cogent post)
:> > But it enacted the Crusades, which I believe to be a negative.
:>
:> From the moral point of view, I would agree with you. From other points of
:> view, however, the Crusades were positive. People returning from the
: Middle
:> East are supposed to have brought back a flood of new ideas and products
:> which improved life in Europe. Even the disastrous Fourth Crusade, when
:> Constantinople was sacked, is supposed to have resulted in many
: manuscripts
:> being brought to the West - probably, given the literacy of the average
:> soldier, for the cover rather than the contents, but still . . .
:>
: Actually a good deal of the looting was by very literate clerics, who
: went straight for the relics and religious artifacts.
Of course - we can't leave holy objects and writings in the hands of
pagans, heathens, or heretics!
Also we should note that the leaders of crusading armies who would have
reserved certain looting privileges for themselves were mostly literate
and aware of the price and prestige of certain prime volumes. Even if
they didn't know the full value of some of what they were bringing back
or couldn't read the "learned languages" that many of the manuscripts
were written in.
--
Bill Kent
bill...@mail.com
http://www.cif.rochester.edu/~wildcat
Curt Emanuel
>
> In article <3AD261...@accs.net>, Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net> wrote:
>
> (Snipped most of a long and cogent post)
> > But it enacted the Crusades, which I believe to be a negative.
>
> From the moral point of view, I would agree with you. From other points of
> view, however, the Crusades were positive. People returning from the Middle
> East are supposed to have brought back a flood of new ideas and products
> which improved life in Europe. Even the disastrous Fourth Crusade, when
> Constantinople was sacked, is supposed to have resulted in many manuscripts
> being brought to the West - probably, given the literacy of the average
> soldier, for the cover rather than the contents, but still . . .
>
> Ken Down
I used to give the Crusades at least that much credit but I don't any
more.
From what I've read, most of the cultural, social, and intellectual
Islamic achievements reached Western Europe from Spain, not the East.
Among works translated into Latin from Arabic through Spain were:
Ptolemy's _Almagest_; Euclid's _Elements_, _Optics_ and Catoptics_;
al-Khwarizmi's _Algebra_; Aristotle's _Physics_, _On the Heavens_,
_Meteorology_, _On Generation and Corruption_; Avicenna's _Canon of
Medicine_ as well as Galen, Plato, Averroes, etc.
I know of nothing comparable that came from the East.
From David Lindberg's _The Beginnings of Western Science: The European
Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional
Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450_ ISBN: 0-226-48231-6:
"Beginning in the first half of the twelfth century, translation became
a major scholarly activity, with Spain as the focus. (Contact with the
Middle East as a result of the Crusades had a minimal impact on
translations.) Spain had the advantage of a brilliant Arabic culture, an
ample supply of Arabic books and communities of Christians (known as
Mozarabs) who had been allowed to practice their religion under Muslim
rule and who could now help mediate between the two cultures. As a
result of the Christian conquest of Spain, centers of Arabic culture and
libraries of Arabic books fell into Christian hands. Toledo, the most
important center, fell in 1085, and in the course of the twelfth century
the riches of its library began to be seriously exploited, thanks in
part to generous patronage from the local bishops." p204
In addition numerous scientific instruments found their way to Europe
from Spain, particularly astronomical instruments. The most important of
these was the astrolabe. I could go on and on about what reached
Medieval Europe from Spain in mathematics, medicine, astronomy,
literature, etc.
I've often wondered why the Crusades receive so much credit for this. Is
it because of the chronological coincidence? The Reconquest was gaining
force at the same time as the Crusades and so the scientific discoveries
and the Crusades happened at the same time. Was this an effort to find
some redeeming quality in the Crusades by later writers? I don't know
the answer to that. I do know that the study of Medieval Spain has been
astonishingly minimal considering the influence that Spain had on later
Medieval Western Europe.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Day
>
> I used to give the Crusades at least that much credit but I don't any
> more.
>
> From what I've read, most of the cultural, social, and intellectual
> Islamic achievements reached Western Europe from Spain, not the East.
>
> Among works translated into Latin from Arabic through Spain were:
> Ptolemy's _Almagest_; Euclid's _Elements_, _Optics_ and Catoptics_;
> al-Khwarizmi's _Algebra_; Aristotle's _Physics_, _On the Heavens_,
> _Meteorology_, _On Generation and Corruption_; Avicenna's _Canon of
> Medicine_ as well as Galen, Plato, Averroes, etc.
the
Crusaders, who destroyed a lotta libraries along with the rest
of the
city.
Nevermind the burning of the Alexanderia library which set the
pattern.
Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was the only
thing
worth reading began banning and burning books as soon as they
had the
power. The only reason we have the Nag Hammadi texts is that
they
were buried in one of these purges by the Byzantines of Coptic
and
Gnostic sects.
RA95
news:3AD4946B...@cei.net...
| the Crusaders, who destroyed a lotta libraries along with the rest
| of the city. Nevermind the burning of the Alexanderia library which
set the
| pattern. Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was the
only
| thing worth reading began banning and burning books as soon as they
| had the power. The only reason we have the Nag Hammadi texts is that
| they were buried in one of these purges by the Byzantines of Coptic
| and Gnostic sects.
Yes, but what they didn't destroy, they "kept alive".
RA
patrick burke
"RA95" <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
news:9b0nfc$1mo$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Yes they did. It may not fit your little simplistic black and white
world but most things in life are "gray". And the longer an institution
exists the more "gray" it gets. Just as the Romans created wonders, and
horrors so to did the "church". The sorry truth is that cultural change is
an evolutionary process of adaptation to the environment of the time.
Adaptation creates the environment and changes to suit it in a largely
uncontrolled cycle. The "church" , Chinese emperors, and Islamic
fundamentalists. do not "oppress" free thinkers, any more than "men" oppress
women. All these institutions are cultural adaptations that came into being
do to environmental pressures, served their purpose, and went away when they
were no longer useful, (or were adapted to the new environment. The idea
that there was a vast continent wide conspiracy to prevent advancement is
ludicrous.
>
> RA
>
>
>
RA95
news:l7TA6.520074$w35.76...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
| > | the Crusaders, who destroyed a lotta libraries along with the
rest
| > | of the city. Nevermind the burning of the Alexanderia library
which
| > set the
| > | pattern. Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was
the
| > only
| > | thing worth reading began banning and burning books as soon as
they
| > | had the power. The only reason we have the Nag Hammadi texts is
that
| > | they were buried in one of these purges by the Byzantines of
Coptic
| > | and Gnostic sects.
| >
| > Yes, but what they didn't destroy, they "kept alive".
|
| Yes they did. It may not fit your little simplistic black and white
| world but most things in life are "gray".
Not a very bright reply. I'm "black and white?". How about: you are
rationalizing.
People and institutions that are inspired by, and represent
on earth, an all good, all knowing, all powerful entity and his "son",
don't perpetrate acts of murder, terror and destruction. That's just
logic and respect for the concept of decency. If such an institution has
a record of that, it indicates it's just another human institution,
without any connections to god(s) etc., contrary to the way it
advertises itself, and its reason for being.
|And the longer an institution exists the more "gray" it gets. Just as
the Romans created wonders, and
| horrors so to did the "church". The sorry truth is that cultural
change is
| an evolutionary process of adaptation to the environment of the time.
I'm not living in a black and white world - you're living in a world of
contrived rationalizations.
There's two things wrong with your statement above. First, it
indicates a human institution, not elevated by any supernatural contacts
or guidance, which is contrary to what christianity advertises itself
as. Second, historically, there is evidence (ex: as presented in
Christianinty & Paganism in the 4th to 8th Centuries, MacMullen, '97)
that AS SOON AS christianity got the power of the state behind it, it
used terror and coercion to institute itself (heretic persecutions
etc.).
Further, I wouldn't be the first to suggest that genocide was
much more a feature of the post-christianity west, than the -pre.
| Adaptation creates the environment and changes to suit it in a largely
| uncontrolled cycle. The "church" , Chinese emperors, and Islamic
| fundamentalists. do not "oppress" free thinkers, any more than "men"
oppress
| women. All these institutions are cultural adaptations that came into
being
| do to environmental pressures, served their purpose, and went away
when they
| were no longer useful, (or were adapted to the new environment.
No, I think history is more than just a flow of events controlled by
surrounding conditions. Soemtimes, one man does make a difference.
Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Einstein, just a few names that stand out.
|The idea that there was a vast continent wide conspiracy to prevent
advancement is
| ludicrous.
Yes it is, and you're the one bringining it up out of what's going on
inside your head.
RA
Phyllis Gilmore
> Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was the only
> thing worth reading began banning and burning books as soon as they
> had the power.
A tad predjudiced and misinformed, aren't we?
I seem to recall from _A Gentle Madness_ that European monasteries were
also great collectors of ancient writings, sometimes in the original,
sometimes transcribed, occasionally translated.
Although I have located my copy of that book, it's not with me, so I
can't check details, but the irony seems to be that Monte Cassino's
library was particularly impressive, but was merely suffering from "tiem
and tide," simple neglect, and schoolboy-type ravages by the
Renaissance. I can't remember the name (haven't finished my coffee
yet), but a famous Italian author rescued at least one Roman history
from that neglect and bemoaned what had likely been lost to the ravages
of time.
That's quite different from willful destruction--carelessness, even
stupidity, but not willfulness.
Further, I seem to recall that early Church fathers were as likely to
quote classical literature as "scripture." Even more interestingly,
I've also heard it claimed that some Muslim conqueror or another burned
the Alexandria library--but that some believe it had been vitimized by
quiet pilferage for so long by then that more of its glory survived the
fire than one might think.
Phyllis
Ken Down
burke" <pbur...@home.com> wrote:
> Actually a good deal of the looting was by very literate clerics, who
> went straight for the relics and religious artifacts.
Correct.
Ken Down
> Nevermind the burning of the Alexanderia library which set the
> pattern.
As I recall, the Alexandria library was burned by Muslims?
> Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was the only
> thing worth reading
Again, that is supposed to be the Muslim claim.
> The only reason we have the Nag Hammadi texts is that they
> were buried in one of these purges by the Byzantines of Coptic
> and Gnostic sects.
The reason why we have buried texts are many and various. Do you have proof
that the Nag Hammadi texts were buried for the reason you state?
Curt Emanuel
> Further, I seem to recall that early Church fathers were as likely to
> quote classical literature as "scripture." Even more interestingly,
> I've also heard it claimed that some Muslim conqueror or another burned
> the Alexandria library--but that some believe it had been vitimized by
> quiet pilferage for so long by then that more of its glory survived the
> fire than one might think.
>
> Phyllis
Yes. The Library was burned and/or looted several times. In 47 BC during
the Civil War between Julius Caesar and Pompey (about 40,000 books were
lost). From that point on it was common for upper class Romans to take a
few books, or a few hundred, either for their own libraries, to stock
the library of another city, or to give as gifts.
The library was also burned in 272 AD, 391 AD (this is the religiously
motivated one everyone talks about) and finally in 640 by the Muslims.
Of course out of those four burnings and the continuous looting the
incident everyone wants to talk about is the one enacted by Christians.
Makes perfect sense doesn't it?
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Peter Nyikos
>In article <3AD4946B...@cei.net>, Day <dayb...@cei.net> wrote:
>> Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was the only
>> thing worth reading
I don't recall any such attitude among the early
Christians. The usual anecdote about this
is told on a Musilm general [see below].
>> began banning and burning books as soon as they
>> had the power.
This part, of course, is true, but just how many
books were burned or banned? It was done on
a selective basis, that much is certain.
>A tad predjudiced and misinformed, aren't we?
>I seem to recall from _A Gentle Madness_ that European monasteries were
>also great collectors of ancient writings, sometimes in the original,
>sometimes transcribed, occasionally translated.
Of course. There is even a great science fiction novel,
_A Canticle for Leibowitz_, which has a similar
future conservation project as its central theme.
>Although I have located my copy of that book, it's not with me, so I
>can't check details, but the irony seems to be that Monte Cassino's
>library was particularly impressive, but was merely suffering from "tiem
>and tide," simple neglect, and schoolboy-type ravages by the
>Renaissance. I can't remember the name (haven't finished my coffee
>yet), but a famous Italian author rescued at least one Roman history
>from that neglect and bemoaned what had likely been lost to the ravages
>of time.
>That's quite different from willful destruction--carelessness, even
>stupidity, but not willfulness.
>Further, I seem to recall that early Church fathers were as likely to
>quote classical literature as "scripture." Even more interestingly,
>I've also heard it claimed that some Muslim conqueror or another burned
>the Alexandria library--but that some believe it had been vitimized by
>quiet pilferage for so long by then that more of its glory survived the
>fire than one might think.
Actually the usual claim is that what was LEFT of it was
almost all burned, but it was already down to less than half
(maybe a whole lot less) of its peak holdings when this happened.
There are two versions. The flamboyant one is that
when the Muslim general was asked what should be done
with the books, the answer was that if they duplicated
what was in the Koran, then they were superfluous; if
they did not, then they were not worth reading and so
they should all be burned.
The prosaic one was that the books were used as fuel
for the hot baths of which so many Muslims were fond.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Peter Nyikos
>In article <3AD4946B...@cei.net>, Day <dayb...@cei.net> wrote:
>> Nevermind the burning of the Alexanderia library which set the
>> pattern.
>As I recall, the Alexandria library was burned by Muslims?
Yes. As I wrote on the thread before the Subject: line
was changed:
There are two versions. The flamboyant one is that
when the Muslim general was asked what should be done
with the books, the answer was that if they duplicated
what was in the Koran, then they were superfluous; if
they did not, then they were not worth reading and so
they should all be burned.
The prosaic one was that the books were used as fuel
for the hot baths of which so many Muslims were fond.
>> Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was the only
>> thing worth reading
>Again, that is supposed to be the Muslim claim.
Yes, the flamboyant one; see above.
>> The only reason we have the Nag Hammadi texts is that they
>> were buried in one of these purges by the Byzantines of Coptic
>> and Gnostic sects.
>The reason why we have buried texts are many and various. Do you have proof
>that the Nag Hammadi texts were buried for the reason you state?
Good point. The Dead Sea Scrolls weren't exactly out
in the open, nor is there reason to think they were
hidden to prevent them
from being destroyed by other sects.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Neville Lindsay
"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:9b29n3$13...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
Here is a more balanced review of the old wives' tales which have been
retailed here.
http://pages.about.com/excelsior/page05.html
NL
Peter Nyikos
>"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>news:9b29n3$13...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
>> Phyllis Gilmore <gil...@rand.org> writes:
>>
>> >In article <3AD4946B...@cei.net>, Day <dayb...@cei.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was the only
>> >> thing worth reading
>>
>> I don't recall any such attitude among the early
>> Christians. The usual anecdote about this
>> is told on a Musilm general [see below].
I hope I made it clear that I wasn't endorsing either
version of the anecdote, nor even the claim of the
actual burning incident:
[...]
>> Actually the usual claim is that what was LEFT of it was
>> almost all burned, but it was already down to less than half
>> (maybe a whole lot less) of its peak holdings when this happened.
>>
>> There are two versions. The flamboyant one is that
>> when the Muslim general was asked what should be done
>> with the books, the answer was that if they duplicated
>> what was in the Koran, then they were superfluous; if
>> they did not, then they were not worth reading and so
>> they should all be burned.
>>
>> The prosaic one was that the books were used as fuel
>> for the hot baths of which so many Muslims were fond.
>Here is a more balanced review of the old wives' tales which have been
>retailed here.
>http://pages.about.com/excelsior/page05.html
Thank you for this reference. A couple of comments.
Gibbon was not an unbiased critic of Christianity,
yet the website seems to take what is quoted by him
at face value. It would have been good to leave out
Gibbon's editorializing:
the appearance of the empty shelves excited the regret and indignation of
every spectator, whose mind was not wholly darkened by religious prejudice.
After all, there could have been many illiterate people
who would only be relieved at the thought of there being
that many fewer books to worry about.
The site includes some heavy-handed editorializing of its own,
e.g., by using the term "the incomparable bigot Omar." Also, the
owner of the website identifies himself by what looks
like a pseudonym, "Appollonius Theocritos," and the Introduction
was a blank page except for the notation:
[Multiple embedded ads forbidden]
Also, the site rather arbitrarily combines the two versions
of the anecdote, calling it "the legend", and even adds the
tidbit that it took six months to complete the "task" of
burning everything. I have never seen that tidbit before in any
of the many places where I have read versions of the anecdote;
moreover, only one of the ones I have read (in Charles Hapgood's
_Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings_) gives both versions, and
Hapgood presents the two versions as being mutually incompatible.
The taking apart of the legend is rather muddled. It's hard
to see what in the paragraph is due to Alfred J. Butler and
what is the addition of the person responsible for the website.
Also it is not clear whether an obviously fictitious dialogue
which is criticized (either by Butler or someone else) in
the paragraph is the only source we have for "the legend".
patrick burke
"RA95" <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
> "patrick burke" <pbur...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:l7TA6.520074$w35.76...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>
> | > | the Crusaders, who destroyed a lotta libraries along with the
> rest
> | > | of the city. Nevermind the burning of the Alexanderia library
> which
> | > set the
> | > | pattern. Early Christians, claiming that their sacred text was
> the
> | > only
> | > | thing worth reading began banning and burning books as soon as
> they
> | > | had the power. The only reason we have the Nag Hammadi texts is
> that
> | > | they were buried in one of these purges by the Byzantines of
> Coptic
> | > | and Gnostic sects.
> | >
> | > Yes, but what they didn't destroy, they "kept alive".
> |
> | Yes they did. It may not fit your little simplistic black and white
> | world but most things in life are "gray".
>
> Not a very bright reply. I'm "black and white?". How about: you are
> rationalizing.
No, just being rational. I am sorry but your constant, "the church was
bad,bad,bad, mantra, is simplistic.
> People and institutions that are inspired by, and represent
> on earth, an all good, all knowing, all powerful entity and his "son",
> don't perpetrate acts of murder, terror and destruction. That's just
> logic and respect for the concept of decency. If such an institution has
> a record of that, it indicates it's just another human institution,
> without any connections to god(s) etc., contrary to the way it
> advertises itself, and its reason for being.
The Church in all its manifold incarnations, has never claimed to
transform its members into flawless beings in capable of error. In point of
fact the church claims to be a vehicle for God's forgiveness. If it claimed
to be perfect, there would be no need for forgiveness. The church is
essentially a human institution, and has really never claimed otherwise. It
holds divine inspiration, but everyone in it is human, and they never
claimed otherwise.
>
> |And the longer an institution exists the more "gray" it gets. Just as
> the Romans created wonders, and
> | horrors so to did the "church". The sorry truth is that cultural
> change is
> | an evolutionary process of adaptation to the environment of the time.
>
> I'm not living in a black and white world - you're living in a world of
> contrived rationalizations.
> There's two things wrong with your statement above. First, it
> indicates a human institution, not elevated by any supernatural contacts
> or guidance, which is contrary to what christianity advertises itself
> as.
Are we discussing history or religion? When I was studying
anthropology, one of the things I learned is that you must compartmentalize
your thinking. You have to recognize and separate your cultural biases to
study another culture objectively. As an (amateur) historian, my faith has
no bearing on the history of the church. Absent objective historical proof
of God, the church is a human institution, period.
As a faith believer in God, I also believe that objective proof of God
is impossible. therefor I expect the church to behave as any other human
institution. If it did not that would be a proof of God, which cannot exist.
As a believer in "a" church, I also no that the church has never claimed
to be totally without error. It only claims that it is without error in
matters of faith, not such things as astronomy or geology. Even papal
infallibility, (a very late doctrine) does not claim otherwise.
>Second, historically, there is evidence (ex: as presented in
> Christianinty & Paganism in the 4th to 8th Centuries, MacMullen, '97)
> that AS SOON AS christianity got the power of the state behind it, it
> used terror and coercion to institute itself (heretic persecutions
> etc.).
Well since the church was a product of its times sure. The Late Roman
empire used coercion to establish it's doctrines as in Diocletian's
persecutions, why should the church of the late Roman world be different.
> Further, I wouldn't be the first to suggest that genocide was
> much more a feature of the post-christianity west, than the -pre.
>
Well that statement makes all kinds of responses possible. First I
think the Japanese destruction of the Ainu was pretty complete. The Romans
destroyed several Celtic tribes in the Po valley and later Caesar did the
same. Then again genocide was so much easier when an entire people consists
of less than 100,000. Who knows how many prehistoric tribes killed off their
rivals.
Then again what is genocide? Does the total destruction of Celtic
gaulish culture count? Even though it was not due to war but the absorption
of the culture into the Roman world?
The most deadly movement in history is undeniably nationalism. I am not
sure that is significant however. Nationalism arose at a time when
technology allowed for very deadly weapons. I can think of no evidence that
Caesar or Richard the Lion Heart would have refused to use F16's and cluster
bombs if they had them. Then again if they had them, the world would have
been a very different place, which is my point.
> | Adaptation creates the environment and changes to suit it in a largely
> | uncontrolled cycle. The "church" , Chinese emperors, and Islamic
> | fundamentalists. do not "oppress" free thinkers, any more than "men"
> oppress
> | women. All these institutions are cultural adaptations that came into
> being
> | do to environmental pressures, served their purpose, and went away
> when they
> | were no longer useful, (or were adapted to the new environment.
>
> No, I think history is more than just a flow of events controlled by
> surrounding conditions. Soemtimes, one man does make a difference.
> Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Einstein, just a few names that stand out.
I don't mean to minimize individual contributions, but at the same
time you must recognize that great men are still the products of their time
and culture. Great men, I think, sense intuitively the forces at work in a
culture and use them, organize them, in a productive (or destructive way).
The forces that were pushing the American culture toward civil rights were
there, whether Martin Luther King was present or not, but his being there
rendered them much more effective.
>
> |The idea that there was a vast continent wide conspiracy to prevent
> advancement is
> | ludicrous.
>
> Yes it is, and you're the one bringining it up out of what's going on
> inside your head.
On the other hand you have been asking "what the hierarchy thought".
Well no offense but I would think that it was obvious that a "hierarchy"
doesn't think at all. Individual members thought various things at various
times. The truth is the church was very factious. That's why it broke up.
>
> RA
>
>
RA95
| No, just being rational. I am sorry but your constant, "the church
was
| bad,bad,bad, mantra, is simplistic.
Christianity has had a great propaganda run for a long time. A little
honest analysis is overdue.
| > People and institutions that are inspired by, and
represent
| > on earth, an all good, all knowing, all powerful entity and his
"son",
| > don't perpetrate acts of murder, terror and destruction. That's just
| > logic and respect for the concept of decency. If such an institution
has
| > a record of that, it indicates it's just another human institution,
| > without any connections to god(s) etc., contrary to the way it
| > advertises itself, and its reason for being.
|
| The Church in all its manifold incarnations, has never claimed to
| transform its members into flawless beings in capable of error. In
point of
| fact the church claims to be a vehicle for God's forgiveness. If it
claimed
| to be perfect, there would be no need for forgiveness. The church is
| essentially a human institution, and has really never claimed
otherwise. It
| holds divine inspiration, but everyone in it is human, and they never
| claimed otherwise.
I think it does oftern claim to be divinely inspired and divinely
guided. There's good reason to think that it has historically caused
more trouble than it has cured.
| > There's two things wrong with your statement above. First,
it
| > indicates a human institution, not elevated by any supernatural
contacts
| > or guidance, which is contrary to what christianity advertises
itself
| > as.
|
| Are we discussing history or religion? When I was studying
| anthropology, one of the things I learned is that you must
compartmentalize
| your thinking. You have to recognize and separate your cultural biases
to
| study another culture objectively. As an (amateur) historian, my faith
has
| no bearing on the history of the church. Absent objective historical
proof
| of God, the church is a human institution, period.
A lot of history has been shaped by religion, then often favorably and
selectivly interpreted by historians belonging to that religion. One
thing, in places in this thread(s), if I remember right, you did
interject religious statements, which didn't seem too objective....
|
| As a faith believer in God, I also believe that objective proof
of God
| is impossible. therefor I expect the church to behave as any other
human
| institution. If it did not that would be a proof of God, which cannot
exist.
|
| As a believer in "a" church, I also no that the church has never
claimed
| to be totally without error. It only claims that it is without error
in
| matters of faith, not such things as astronomy or geology. Even papal
| infallibility, (a very late doctrine) does not claim otherwise.
Well, I think a lot of the discussion had to do with the church
inserting itself into scientific questions.
| >Second, historically, there is evidence (ex: as presented in
| > Christianinty & Paganism in the 4th to 8th Centuries, MacMullen,
'97)
| > that AS SOON AS christianity got the power of the state behind it,
it
| > used terror and coercion to institute itself (heretic persecutions
| > etc.).
|
| Well since the church was a product of its times sure. The Late
Roman
| empire used coercion to establish it's doctrines as in Diocletian's
| persecutions, why should the church of the late Roman world be
different.
In a way, that's the whole point. If chrisitianity was valid to its
precepts it wouldn't have persecuted anybody. (Do unto others, turn the
other cheek etc ). There's actually reason to think that in fact, to
uphold its problematic beliefs, it has been far more persecutorial than
other religions. no state).
| > Further, I wouldn't be the first to suggest that genocide
was
| > much more a feature of the post-christianity west, than the -pre.
| >
|
| Well that statement makes all kinds of responses possible. First
I
| think the Japanese destruction of the Ainu was pretty complete. The
Romans
| destroyed several Celtic tribes in the Po valley and later Caesar did
the
| same. Then again genocide was so much easier when an entire people
consists
| of less than 100,000. Who knows how many prehistoric tribes killed off
their
| rivals.
I agree. However, we are talking about a religion, theoretically
appealing to mans' highest motivations. The problem is that there are
always dividing lines and causes for wars and wipeouts: economics, race
etc. Apparently, christianiaty, and religions in general, just added
another dividing line.
| I don't mean to minimize individual contributions, but at the
same
| time you must recognize that great men are still the products of their
time
| and culture. Great men, I think, sense intuitively the forces at work
in a
| culture and use them, organize them, in a productive (or destructive
way).
| The forces that were pushing the American culture toward civil rights
were
| there, whether Martin Luther King was present or not, but his being
there
| rendered them much more effective.
Right, I think it's a chaotic mixture of trends (rarely just one) and
the availability of the right "personality(s)". That's probably why
successful societies have mechanisms and procedures for encouraging the
development of leadership. Having a bunch of conformist followers is
probably not a good survival value.
| >
| > |The idea that there was a vast continent wide conspiracy to prevent
| > advancement is
| > | ludicrous.
| >
| > Yes it is, and you're the one bringining it up out of what's going
on
| > inside your head.
| On the other hand you have been asking "what the hierarchy
thought".
| Well no offense but I would think that it was obvious that a
"hierarchy"
| doesn't think at all. Individual members thought various things at
various
| times. The truth is the church was very factious. That's why it broke
up.
Yes, no real overriding principal binding it. Compare, for existence,
the US in 1860, historically it probably should have fragmented, but
the hierarchy, largely in the person of Lincoln, made it otherwise.
RA
Michael Kuettner
RA95 <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
> "patrick burke" <pbur...@home.com> wrote in message news:UAlB6.533161
>
> | No, just being rational. I am sorry but your constant, "the
church
> was
> | bad,bad,bad, mantra, is simplistic.
>
> Christianity has had a great propaganda run for a long time. A little
> honest analysis is overdue.
>
are two different kettles of fish.
As I've stated before, blanket statements are useless.
Hint - Jerry Falwell also falls under "Christianity"; at least for
Americans. Is the Vatican responsible for his fleecing of his
sheep ? Is he responsible for Vatican politics ?
<snip>
> I think it does oftern claim to be divinely inspired and divinely
> guided. There's good reason to think that it has historically caused
> more trouble than it has cured.
Blanket statement again.
<snip>
> A lot of history has been shaped by religion, then often favorably and
> selectivly interpreted by historians belonging to that religion.
<snip>
Not only a lot of history; all of history was shaped by religion.
And all of pre-history, also.
Look at paintings; look at the pyramids. It was *all* about
religion.
Look at Lenin's tomb - this is "ersatz"-religion, but religion
nevertheless.
<snip>
> Well, I think a lot of the discussion had to do with the church
> inserting itself into scientific questions.
>
And here you switch back to the church (your last statement was
about Christianity). This is called "shifting the goalposts".
<snip>
> In a way, that's the whole point. If chrisitianity was valid to its
> precepts it wouldn't have persecuted anybody. (Do unto others, turn
the
> other cheek etc ). There's actually reason to think that in fact, to
> uphold its problematic beliefs, it has been far more persecutorial
than
> other religions. no state).
>
And here you switch back to Christianity.
Persecutorial ? I can't think of any religion (or ideology) that was
tolerant. Why single out the church ?
<snip>
>
As I've stated in another post, please argue clearly and stop making
blanket statements.
You only can get a clear answer if you ask a clear defined question.
If you want church-bashing, it's alt.atheism. There's a constant war
going on over there (fuelled exactly by these kinds of statements).
If you want answers, please ask clearly defined questions.
Regards,
Michael Kuettner
RA95
news:vlpB6.839$b83....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net...
| >
| > Christianity has had a great propaganda run for a long time. A
little
| > honest analysis is overdue.
| Sorry - but here you are wrong again. Christianity and the church
| are two different kettles of fish.
Come on, this is just a tactic. Tell me what I've been wrong about:
earth's origin not as described in the bible?; man's origin?, the
falsity of the exodus myth; the falsity of Israel's origin?; Jesus'
miracle healings etc etc. Read MacMullen about the early church's
suppression of "heretics" and dumbing down of western society.. Was HG
Wells "wrong again" when he wrote about the retarding effects of
christianity on western intellectualism. I don;t think so.
| As I've stated before, blanket statements are useless.
| Hint - Jerry Falwell also falls under "Christianity"; at least for
| Americans. Is the Vatican responsible for his fleecing of his
| sheep ? Is he responsible for Vatican politics ?
Hint: who was even refering in this trhead to recent christianity, much
less Falwell.
| <snip>
| > I think it does oftern claim to be divinely inspired and divinely
| > guided. There's good reason to think that it has historically caused
| > more trouble than it has cured.
|
| Blanket statement again.
Well, on this basis there's a lot int eh wrold that never be studied or
even discussed, how conveninet.
RA
RA95
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
news:vlpB6.839$b83....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net...
|
| As I've stated in another post, please argue clearly and stop making
| blanket statements.
| You only can get a clear answer if you ask a clear defined question.
Be careful of what you ask for. If you put yourself in the stance of
somebody who wants specific questions put to him, so he can argue the
validity and good effects of religion, supernatualism etc, you are
taking on quite a task and NUMEROUS major questions exist.
RA
Neville Lindsay
Well, its not a scholarly paper, but you might have noted that the author
was not taking sides - he was exposing the evidence, prejudices and stories
involved. Perfectly legitimate - and allowing us to look for the specific
evidence and make up our minds. I posted it as a quick counter to the
dogmatic tales being bandied around here as 'true'. Perhaps you would like
to post a definitive argument or site which meets your high standards.
NL
Michael Kuettner
RA95 <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:vlpB6.839$b83....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net...
>
> | >
> | > Christianity has had a great propaganda run for a long time. A
> little
> | > honest analysis is overdue.
>
> | Sorry - but here you are wrong again. Christianity and the church
> | are two different kettles of fish.
>
> Come on, this is just a tactic. Tell me what I've been wrong about:
> earth's origin not as described in the bible?; man's origin?, the
> falsity of the exodus myth; the falsity of Israel's origin?; Jesus'
> miracle healings etc etc. Read MacMullen about the early church's
> suppression of "heretics" and dumbing down of western society.. Was HG
> Wells "wrong again" when he wrote about the retarding effects of
> christianity on western intellectualism. I don;t think so.
>
I just pointed out that the Catholic church doesn't equal
Christianity.
> | As I've stated before, blanket statements are useless.
> | Hint - Jerry Falwell also falls under "Christianity"; at least for
> | Americans. Is the Vatican responsible for his fleecing of his
> | sheep ? Is he responsible for Vatican politics ?
>
> Hint: who was even refering in this trhead to recent christianity,
much
> less Falwell.
But he also falls under Christianity.
> | <snip>
> | > I think it does oftern claim to be divinely inspired and divinely
> | > guided. There's good reason to think that it has historically
caused
> | > more trouble than it has cured.
> |
> | Blanket statement again.
>
> Well, on this basis there's a lot int eh wrold that never be studied
or
> even discussed, how conveninet.
>
> RA
>
Of course it can be studied and discussed. But only in clearly
defined terms.
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
RA95 <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
>
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:vlpB6.839$b83....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net...
> |
> | RA95 <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
>
> | As I've stated in another post, please argue clearly and stop making
> | blanket statements.
> | You only can get a clear answer if you ask a clear defined question.
>
> Be careful of what you ask for. If you put yourself in the stance of
> somebody who wants specific questions put to him, so he can argue the
> validity and good effects of religion, supernatualism etc, you are
> taking on quite a task and NUMEROUS major questions exist.
>
Nobody here wants to argue the above.
The threads here started with flat earth, and this was debunked.
Michael Kuettner
RA95
|
| RA95 <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
| news:9b5f3p$sk1$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
| >
| > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
| > somebody who wants specific questions put to him, so he can argue
the
| > validity and good effects of religion, supernatualism etc, you are
| > taking on quite a task and NUMEROUS major questions exist.
| >
| <snip>
| Nobody here wants to argue the above.
Ok, originally the 'flat earth" was a minor point in a bigger subject in
a sci.archaeology thread, then somebody cross posted into "medieval" ,
and then the aggravation got going becasue there was a lot of attendant
misunderstanding. No big deal.
RA|
D. Spencer Hines
about this matter.
He simply gave several alternative stories and caveated them.
He was by no means either "dogmatic" or even an advocate for any of
those views.
You need to read his posts more carefully.
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:cuAB6.5326$W7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
RA95
| >
| > Come on, this is just a tactic. Tell me what I've been wrong about:
| > earth's origin not as described in the bible?; man's origin?, the
| > falsity of the exodus myth; the falsity of Israel's origin?; Jesus'
| > miracle healings etc etc. Read MacMullen about the early church's
| > suppression of "heretics" and dumbing down of western society.. Was
HG
| > Wells "wrong again" when he wrote about the retarding effects of
| > christianity on western intellectualism. I don;t think so.
| >
| I wasn't talking about any of the above points.
| I just pointed out that the Catholic church doesn't equal
| Christianity.
True, but it's a big part of it.
| > | As I've stated before, blanket statements are useless.
| > | Hint - Jerry Falwell also falls under "Christianity"; at least for
| > | Americans. Is the Vatican responsible for his fleecing of his
| > | sheep ? Is he responsible for Vatican politics ?
|
| Of course it can be studied and discussed. But only in clearly
| defined terms.
As a sort of scientific experiment concerning this general subject,
let's elect Jerry F. as president and see what happens.
RA
|
Neville Lindsay
The threads came from Cultural Cleansing in Afghanistan, and moved directly
into whether Christianity had nurtured or impeded western development. The
flat-earth business was a diversionary tactic to get off the main business
of Christianity's malign influence - and a successful one too. Also a usual
one for some of the proponents of a benign church, who win a side argument
(or in this case had it won for them) and believe and claim they have
therefore won the main one. Not so.
NL
Neville Lindsay
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:OrGiZ$FxAHA.302@cpmsnbbsa09...
> Peter Nyikos never said that he endorsed the alleged accounts he told us
> about this matter.
>
> He simply gave several alternative stories and caveated them.
>
> He was by no means either "dogmatic" or even an advocate for any of
> those views.
>
> You need to read his posts more carefully.
To help you comprehend what went on, I did not say he endorsed the alleged
accounts, which were given by several different earlier posters. Nor did I
say he was dogmatic or an advocate of any of the views.
Here is the sum total of my post:
"Here is a more balanced review of the old wives' tales which have been
retailed here.
http://pages.about.com/excelsior/page05.html".
Now tell me where this says 'you are dogmatic' or 'you advocate the views'
posted earlier by such as Day and Down.
To further help you to comprehend what went on, he did comment critically on
the link I posted above which gave a summary of evidence and opinion, on
several grounds, so I asked him for a more definitive answer, which is quite
a reasonable response in a rational discussion.
To use your own words, you need to read his, my and the earlier posts more
carefully.
NL
Peter Nyikos
[To D. Spencer Hines, about me:]
>To help you comprehend what went on, I did not say he endorsed the alleged
>accounts, which were given by several different earlier posters. Nor did I
>say he was dogmatic or an advocate of any of the views.
>Here is the sum total of my post:
>"Here is a more balanced review of the old wives' tales which have been
>retailed here.
>http://pages.about.com/excelsior/page05.html".
>Now tell me where this says 'you are dogmatic' or 'you advocate the views'
>posted earlier by such as Day and Down.
I came in late. What did they say? Were they
unequivocal?
>To further help you to comprehend what went on, he did comment critically on
>the link I posted above which gave a summary of evidence and opinion, on
>several grounds, so I asked him for a more definitive answer, which is quite
>a reasonable response in a rational discussion.
Alas, my knowledge is inadequate for giving a more
definitive answer. I was merely critiquing the
website, which you seemed to be implying was
giving a "more balanced" review than I was giving.
It seems from what you are saying now that you
did not mean to imply any such thing. Fine.
But I don't regret writing anything I did, with
one exception,
and if you know how to get in touch with the person
running it, I'd appreciate you calling his attention
to my comments.
The exception:
>> | > Also, the site rather arbitrarily combines the two versions
>> | > of the anecdote, calling it "the legend",
Scratch the "rather arbitrarily": perhaps there really
is just one original source for the legend, the one
given by the website, and people have been telling
bits and pieces of it ever since then.
and even adds the
>> | > tidbit that it took six months to complete the "task" of
>> | > burning everything. I have never seen that tidbit before in any
>> | > of the many places where I have read versions of the anecdote;
>> | > moreover, only one of the ones I have read (in Charles Hapgood's
>> | > _Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings_) gives both versions, and
>> | > Hapgood presents the two versions as being mutually incompatible.
Hapgood may have been wrong, of course.
>> | > The taking apart of the legend is rather muddled. It's hard
>> | > to see what in the paragraph is due to Alfred J. Butler and
>> | > what is the addition of the person responsible for the website.
>> | > Also it is not clear whether an obviously fictitious dialogue
>> | > which is criticized (either by Butler or someone else) in
>> | > the paragraph is the only source we have for "the legend".
If you do get in touch with the person who
is in charge of the website, do ask him about
whether it is the only known source, please.
>> | Well, its not a scholarly paper, but you might have noted that the
>> author
>> | was not taking sides - he was exposing the evidence, prejudices and
>> stories
>> | involved.
...but he may have had a few prejudices himself. Here
is something I wrote earlier:
The site includes some heavy-handed editorializing of its own,
e.g., by using the term "the incomparable bigot Omar." Also, the
owner of the website identifies himself by what looks
like a pseudonym, "Appollonius Theocritos," and the Introduction
was a blank page except for the notation:
[Multiple embedded ads forbidden]
I had been hoping to find out more about the website
owner from the introduction. As you can see, I was unsuccessful.
Perfectly legitimate - and allowing us to look for the
>> specific
>> | evidence and make up our minds. I posted it as a quick counter to the
>> | dogmatic tales being bandied around here as 'true'. Perhaps you would
>> like
>> | to post a definitive argument or site which meets your high standards.
Sorry, I know of no better site. Let's try to improve on
the one we do know about.
Neville Lindsay
My response was to Hines, an erratic personality, who has a habit of getting
the wrong end of the stick and butting in with offbeat comments.
I really don't want to get into the business of telling someone how to
better their website without giving them chapter and verse what is wrong
with it, and on this topic I don't have that time or inclination.
Here is another site on the history of the library and it's end. The new
library is interesting also:
http://www.greece.org/alexandria/library/library14.htm
NL
"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:9b8l2j$1n...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
D. Spencer Hines
He obviously has not a dram of solid knowledge on this topic ---- as he
reveals, infra.
All he can do is punch websites.
He should read carefully and think clearly ---- if that be possible ----
before he posts.
He's picking up bad habits from Ansero and others.
He should read books, not scrambled, amateur websites.
'Nuff said.
Exitus Acta Probat.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:vBTB6.6892$W7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Neville Lindsay
> Lindsay is clearly back-pedalling and dissimulating.
Hines is off on one of his rabbitings again.
> He obviously has not a dram of solid knowledge on this topic ---- as he
> reveals, infra.
We all learn as we go - it was not a subject I had any real answers on, but
at least I took the trouble to look it up instead of repeating fairy stories
about nasty Arabs off the top of my head - now about your solid knowledge
contribution to the discussion .....
> All he can do is punch websites.
A website which gives a good overview is a very effective way of giving a
quick reference on a subject, and as long as it gives sources, the scholarly
can followup as they please. As for you, I have yet to see you post anything
anywhere better than a tendentious sentence here and there nitpicking other
posters. Look at your own post here - absolutely packed with substance and
erudition isn't it.
> He should read carefully and think clearly ---- if that be possible ----
> before he posts.
Read carefully and think clearly - from you, one of the laughing stocks of
Usenet - for someone as well-known a nitwit as you to be making such
comments would be remarkable were it not so typical.
> He's picking up bad habits from Ansero and others.
> He should read books, not scrambled, amateur websites.
If you were capable of reading anything straight, you would see those
websites each have source references to back up their statements for those
who wish to authenticate them. And they are a long, long way ahead of a
roving, random nitpicker like you who is yet to post anything more than
single sentence picks at other peoples' efforts.
> 'Nuff said.
I do not know how you escaped from my killfile - you must have changed your
address to avoid the Coventry where most people have confined you after
getting sick of your ravings. Well, back into the box with you again.
NL
RA95
"" The compilation of a national bibliography was entrusted to
Callimachus. Though now lost, it survived into the Byzantine period as a
standard reference work of Greek literature. The museum and library
survived for many centuries but were destroyed in the civil war that
occurred under the Roman emperor Aurelian in the late 3rd century AD;
the "daughter library" was destroyed by Christians in AD 391. ""
RA
Suzanne
"RA95" <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
>
> "Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>
> | Much too broad a question: you have to specify when. The position in
> | the 12th c., for instance, was completely different from the position
> | in the 16th and 17th c., but you're focussing almost exclusively on
> | the later period, about which there really isn't much argument. For
> | the earlier period, however, a case can be (and has been) made that
> | the church actually stimulated science.
>
> I'm sure that church attitudes did differ over time. Some the Protestant
> sects seem (to me at least) as having developed into encouraging
> science and non-supernaturalist thinking, in recent centuries.
> Similarly, Calvinism almost seems like a "business" religion. (Some
> people are predestined to do well, this is reflected in their material
> success on earth, so if you're destined for heaven, do well in business
> etc.) However, it's hard to read historians like Wells and MacMullen
> for instance, and not come away with the idea that intellectualism was
> damaged by christianity. Do you have any good overview books in mind on
> this topic?
>
> | Countless? Current best estimate is ~40,000 (male and female)
> | witches, mostly in the 16th and 17th c. And most of the death
> | sentences were imposed by secular courts; church courts generally
> | preferred non-lethal penalties.
>
> Around 100,000 people were tried for witchcraft, and about 50 pct of
> those were executed. "Countless" thousands, not millions like some new
> age "historians" like to imply.
> The point within this discussion, of church effect on
> intellectualism / science, is how much of that sort of intrusion,
> inquisition, punishment, torture, and death by extremely painful means
> does it take to create an environment where people are repelled versus
> attracted to "maverick" pursuits of new knowledge and inventiveness?
> I've seen people shut down and conform just at the whiff of a threat to
> them getting a raise, much less being tortured to death.
> It's evident that what the church was encouraging and doing,
> if done nowadays, would get them hunted down, prosecuted and sent to
> prisons and insane asylums.
>
It says no where in the Bible to torture people as those people
did to the people who they thought were witches. I reject their
actions as being Christian at all. There were plenty of people
who did not adhere to this idea at all, and who were upset by
such goings on, the same as today the Christian community is
upset at the people who take it upon themselves to harm doctors
who do abortions. A Christian that is real will also be concerned
for the doctor that performs such things, and for his salvation,
even though what he is doing is against what the Bible says to
do. Books do not contain the whole truth. Blaming all of Christianity
for something that a few do, and overlooking all the good that the
many do, is what people usually do. That is not a very scientific
attitude to have toward Christians that some of these books and
encyclopedias convey.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
"RA95" <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
> "patrick burke" <pbur...@home.com> wrote in message news:UAlB6.533161
>
> | No, just being rational. I am sorry but your constant, "the church
> was
> | bad,bad,bad, mantra, is simplistic.
>
> Christianity has had a great propaganda run for a long time. A little
> honest analysis is overdue.
>
countless tons of people who are not seen by people who
want to criticize the ENTIRE Christian population of millions,
that do the right things that are taught in the Bible, and are
horrified by those who are labeled "Christians" that do not
seem to ever have picked up the Bible and read about
what constitutes Christian conduct. To blame all of Christendom
for the actions of a few mislabeled people, is not such a fair
assessment. If I said "all atheists are mean" that would not
be an accurate statement. Some atheists are delightful people,
actually....in fact a lot of them are. They are just people! It is
the same with people who wear the label of Christian. A few
bad apples does not speak for the whole of a group, especially
if the others of the same group also condemn the activities of
some. Since the only people who really are Christians are
people who have given their lives to Jesus Christ, it does not
stand to reason that the secular community at large could,
themselves, believe that the people who do things like torture
people they think are witches, would even be Christians, since
no where in the Bible does it say that Jesus said to torture
people. The scripture is from the Hebrew portion of the Bible,
which is Exodus 22:18, which says "Thou shalt not suffer a
witch to live. The word for "witch" is definitely, in the Hebrew
a "Kashaph" (kaw-SHAF), which is one who practises
witchcraft, but the word "live" here, in Hebrew is "Chayah"
(khaw-YAW) which has several meanings, one of which is the
likely one, which is "live prosperously", which would mean
"Don't pay a witch for her services, because in so doing, you
are sustaining her to remain in sin." Deuteronomy 18:10
indicates that of those that are followers of God among the
Hebrews, none of them should be deviates of the worship of
God, and it lists people who obey foreign gods such as the
Moabites who threw their children into fire to apease a phony
god, and an enchanter, a witch, or a diviner of the future.
If a person that is a Christian made a terrible mistake in
judgment and did kill someone, thinking that the Bible said
to do it, what would have happened is that the Holy Spirit
would have overcome him with conviction that this was a
wrong thing to do, and it would not have continued. Therefore,
I doubt very seriously that the people who did kill what they
assumed were witches, and did so as you say in the tens of
thousands of times, they were not Christians or they would have
discontinued the practise very fast, since the indwelling
Holy Spirit would curb their activities really fast by inward
conviction that their actions were wrong. As this did not cease
rapidly, I therefore do not think the ones doing this, especially
since they added torture, were Christians at all.
wishes that all would come to him.
>
> | I don't mean to minimize individual contributions, but at the
> same
> | time you must recognize that great men are still the products of their
> time
> | and culture. Great men, I think, sense intuitively the forces at work
> in a
> | culture and use them, organize them, in a productive (or destructive
> way).
> | The forces that were pushing the American culture toward civil rights
> were
> | there, whether Martin Luther King was present or not, but his being
> there
> | rendered them much more effective.
>
> Right, I think it's a chaotic mixture of trends (rarely just one) and
> the availability of the right "personality(s)". That's probably why
> successful societies have mechanisms and procedures for encouraging the
> development of leadership. Having a bunch of conformist followers is
> probably not a good survival value.
>
In other words, no one human being should out-rank the voice
of the Lord working in the heart of the believer. We might find
people as leaders who we mostly agree with, but even they may
make mistakes, which is why a believer in Christ should listen to
what the Lord is telling him, personally, in his heart and thoughts.
While it's great to have someone who can tell you what to do in
those gray areas that are confusing, it still behooves a believer
to pray and seek only the Lord's will as the final authority, and
follow what his word says as a back up or confirmation to what
other people say is true.
>
> | >
> | > |The idea that there was a vast continent wide conspiracy to prevent
> | > advancement is
> | > | ludicrous.
> | >
> | > Yes it is, and you're the one bringining it up out of what's going
> on
> | > inside your head.
>
> | On the other hand you have been asking "what the hierarchy
> thought".
> | Well no offense but I would think that it was obvious that a
> "hierarchy"
> | doesn't think at all. Individual members thought various things at
> various
> | times. The truth is the church was very factious. That's why it broke
> up.
>
> Yes, no real overriding principal binding it. Compare, for existence,
> the US in 1860, historically it probably should have fragmented, but
> the hierarchy, largely in the person of Lincoln, made it otherwise.
>
collectively all the believers in Christ, and it did not break up...what
broke up was the Catholic church. There were plenty of people who
were living that never were Catholic by their own choice.
>
Suzanne
tiglath
"Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:zxGD6.3480$W35.73...@newssvr10-int.news.prodigy.com...
> Here we go again. The truth of the matter is that there are
> countless tons of people who are not seen by people who
> want to criticize the ENTIRE Christian population of millions,
> that do the right things that are taught in the Bible, and are
> horrified by those who are labeled "Christians" that do not
> seem to ever have picked up the Bible and read about
> what constitutes Christian conduct.
What does constitute Christian conduct?
The right answer has to be, following Christ's teachings, has it not?
Not just the few selected teaching that don't conflict with our modern
taste, style, and aspirations. Central to Christ's teaching is
poverty, since he believed that we ought to set our eyes on the next
world and not on this one. Thus, he encouraged us to give away our
possessions freely and not to hoard riches. This is all very
inconvenient, therefore, esoteric excuses abound to justify the wealth
that Christians and their churches accumulate. Listening to modern
Christians it seems that Jesus was just about loving your neighbor and
loving God. The inconvenient teachings are swept under the table.
How many Christians are there for whom this criticism would be valid?
Then there is the doctrine itself, which while having some redeeming
value in promoting Christian love, the best part of Christianity,
lacks woefully in many other areas. Hardly the sign of divine touch.
Also, due to the characteristics of the Christian Bible, a difficult
book to put it mildly, Christianity easily conveys the deep suspicion
of being of human manufacture, two thousand years of unsupported
claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Christians boast in their ranks men and women of exemplary conduct,
who gave and give their lives in the service of those in need. We
must not forget this. But those who claim that such abnegate
sacrifice is inspired by the Christian doctrine must be reminded that
they may be committing the fallacy of counting the hits and not the
misses. For, at the other extreme of the spectrum we have people
like Reinhard Bonnke and Benny Hinn who con people all over the world
with their healing shows. HBO is airing a program on those two
frauds worth watching.
When asked about his affluent life style Benny Hinn answered with a
straight face that such life keeps him in the necessary mental and
physical condition to ensure his longevity, energy, and good health,
all necessary to continue his good work and heal as many people as
possible.
He "healed" a terminally ill, comatose child. He got the poor parents
to subscribe to his ministry and send $100 a month, and as the child
got worse, AFTER the healing, they upped the amount. When interviewed
they said that when they got their wages God's money came out of them
first. As a result they run up a large credit card debt. The child
died and they STILL said that they saw nothing wrong with the healer
and his act. These are good, unfortunate folks whose misfortune,
unknown to them, is that they never learned how to think.
This is an extreme example of the kind of credulous minds religious
faith promotes. Minds ripe to fall prey to disloyal friends, quacks,
healers, eloquent politicians and just about any charlatan that
saunters by. I cannot find any comfort derived from religion that
can outweigh such a mental handicap. Believers, will of course,
disagree. No junky trashes his smack.
Craig Levin
Suzanne <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote:
>It says no where in the Bible to torture people as those people
>did to the people who they thought were witches.
See Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:27, and Deuteronomy 18:11; if
you're looking for NT verification, try Galatians 5, and there
are bits in Apocalypse that don't give me the impression that
Christianity ws living in harmony with witchcraft.
Craig Levin
--
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html
cle...@rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin
Suzanne
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:9bnjio$kdc$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote in message
> news:zxGD6.3480$W35.73...@newssvr10-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > Here we go again. The truth of the matter is that there are
> > countless tons of people who are not seen by people who
> > want to criticize the ENTIRE Christian population of millions,
> > that do the right things that are taught in the Bible, and are
> > horrified by those who are labeled "Christians" that do not
> > seem to ever have picked up the Bible and read about
> > what constitutes Christian conduct.
>
> What does constitute Christian conduct?
>
attacks, other believers. Another is that he displays usually,
the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, kindness, gentleness,
meekness (self control), patience, and suffers long for someone
else, if needs be. At least these qualities exemplify a believer
who is being tuned in to the Spiritual promptings in his heart.
All Christians are capable of erring, but it is not likely that they
would kill one person after another that someone claimed is a
witch as these did that we are speaking of.
>
> The right answer has to be, following Christ's teachings, has it not?
> Not just the few selected teaching that don't conflict with our modern
> taste, style, and aspirations. Central to Christ's teaching is
> poverty, since he believed that we ought to set our eyes on the next
> world and not on this one. Thus, he encouraged us to give away our
> possessions freely and not to hoard riches. This is all very
> inconvenient, therefore, esoteric excuses abound to justify the wealth
> that Christians and their churches accumulate. Listening to modern
> Christians it seems that Jesus was just about loving your neighbor and
> loving God. The inconvenient teachings are swept under the table.
> How many Christians are there for whom this criticism would be valid?
>
accurate. In the first place, Jesus neither intitiated the gospel of
prospering a person, nor of poverty of a person. What he actually said
was that "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil," *not* that money was
the root of all evil. When he spoke to the Rich Young Ruler and told him
to go and sell all that he had and give to the poor, that was in order for
that young man, who trusted in riches to be able to truly trust in God, and
not in riches. He advocated also that he had not come to do away with
the law, but to fulfill the law, and in the Old Testament, it says that the
descendants of Abraham would be blessed richly. A Christian is one who
is a descendant of Abraham through Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus, being
spiritually born of the faith. In the blessing of Abraham, while there were
descendants that would more than number the sands of the sea, that
referred to the physical descendants. But in the same continuation of that
blessing, Abraham, who would be the father of many was also told to
count the stars, which he could not do, and the Lord said those descendants
would outnumber the stars. Those referred to the spiritual children that would
be his descendants, which includes all those who are saved through the
Messiah, Jesus. I'm saying this to show you that we also are inheritors of
the blessings of Abraham. So, whatever Abraham would be blessed with
so could a Christian as well. Also, it is said in the Bible that if a person
will give a tenth of his income to the Lord, he will give back a blessing
that will outmeasure what was given by the person. This is by giving at
least a tithe. Next, in order to bless people by giving financially, a person
has to have received money. It says no where in the scripture that it is
wrong to make money, it simply says that a person is to not *trust* in
money. It says not to lay up treasures for yourself, meaning hoarding,
which does not mean that you should not prepare for the future. In fact,
it says that a man who does not take care of his family, which includes
preparing ahead of time for the future, is worse than an infidel, so it is
right to do those things. But it says not to trust in them, but to trust in God.
For example, if a person has a lot of stock, and there is a stock market
crash, the Lord will see to it that he has what he needs, if they trust him.
Two women ministered to Jesus "of their substanance" which means they
may have been loaded.. : ) ....and Joseph of Arimathaea also was rich
in that he already had a tomb prepared for himself. He is the epitome of
not putting his faith in his treasure, though, because he gave freely so that
Jesus would have a tomb....and of course never dreaming it would become
one of the most important symbols in the Christian faith. The two women
who sustained Jesus of their substance were Susanna and also Joanna,
who was the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, both of who were well off
financially. It also says in Luke 8:3 "...and many others" who helped him.
Christians are instructed to give to the ministry. Now, they would have
to have something in order to give it. If God meant that all should give
away all their money, then no one would have survived to preach the
gospel. The gospel preachers were dependant upon people whom
God had blessed to minister to them and to the churches. God knows
were to bank. "Unto whom much is given, much shall be required."
The ground rule is, though that a person should not trust in his riches,
but in God. Many of the early Christians at Jerusalem pooled their
resources, having common meals and plans together, but this is not
what God had for people in the various churches that are addressed
in the Revelation in the neighboring cities and countries. It says no
where that we are as a whole to pool all our resources and go live
together and have common meals, but these were directed that way,
so that the gospel could be sent forth it would appear.
>
Then there is the claim by some that if you follow the Lord, you will
be blessed monetarily always. This is not true. People can also be
blessed spiritually, and emotionally and still not have very much. They
can be prospered in their spiritual blessings. If it were true that there
would be something wrong with someone's faith if they are not rich,
then Jesus would not have been in the elite group. His family brought
two turtledoves as a sacrifice to the temple. Bringing that offering was
what poor people brought, while the rest brought a lamb. This was
when they presented Jesus to the temple anyway. (In a real sense,
though, they did bring a lamb, in that they brought the Lamb of God,
which was Jesus.) The bringing of the turtledoves showed that they
were very, very poor. Jesus' family, all of whom were obedient to
God would have been "prospered" if that were true that someone
following God will be "prospered" as some claim. So, it depends
largely upon what God wants to allow someone to have, and upon
what is best for them. Both the poor and the rich can be Christians,
and be so effectively. It depends upon what God wants for them.
>
> Then there is the doctrine itself, which while having some redeeming
> value in promoting Christian love, the best part of Christianity,
> lacks woefully in many other areas. Hardly the sign of divine touch.
> Also, due to the characteristics of the Christian Bible, a difficult
> book to put it mildly, Christianity easily conveys the deep suspicion
> of being of human manufacture, two thousand years of unsupported
> claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
have truly loved people. This is simply not true. This is what I addressed
already in the preceding post. Christianity was started by God at the
beginning of creation, for it was that long ago that he planned the
Messiah, who was "slain from the foundations of the world."
>
> Christians boast in their ranks men and women of exemplary conduct,
> who gave and give their lives in the service of those in need. We
> must not forget this. But those who claim that such abnegate
> sacrifice is inspired by the Christian doctrine must be reminded that
> they may be committing the fallacy of counting the hits and not the
> misses. For, at the other extreme of the spectrum we have people
> like Reinhard Bonnke and Benny Hinn who con people all over the world
> with their healing shows. HBO is airing a program on those two
> frauds worth watching.
>
Christians in the Bible, you would see that among them there were
those who took their father's wife in adultery, there were those who
were in the churches some of which were criticized in the Revelation.
This did not mean that they stayed that way, but those were believers.
As for their exemplary conduct, a church is a hospital for sinners, not
a sanctuary for the perfect. I realize there are people in the world
though, that think they are already living in their glorified bodies. : )
>
Reinhardt Bonke and Benny Hinn, I have no opinion about. I have
seen that what they do, brings people to Christ. I have no idea if the
charges made are true or not. If they made mistakes in the past,
I'm sure they all will be in those documentaries, but I doubt that they
will say anything good that they may have done. You know what
The world view is what you will see leveled as a criticism at these
men. You know what Shakespeare said about that in Julius Caesar,
don't you? "....The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft
interred with their bones." As Abraham Lincoln would say "if you look
for the bad in people, you will find it, you surely will." Fault could be
found with most.
>
> When asked about his affluent life style Benny Hinn answered with a
> straight face that such life keeps him in the necessary mental and
> physical condition to ensure his longevity, energy, and good health,
> all necessary to continue his good work and heal as many people as
> possible.
>
> He "healed" a terminally ill, comatose child. He got the poor parents
> to subscribe to his ministry and send $100 a month, and as the child
> got worse, AFTER the healing, they upped the amount. When interviewed
> they said that when they got their wages God's money came out of them
> first. As a result they run up a large credit card debt. The child
> died and they STILL said that they saw nothing wrong with the healer
> and his act. These are good, unfortunate folks whose misfortune,
> unknown to them, is that they never learned how to think.
>
usually says that God healed them, not he himself. God does often
bless someone so that they can minister, if they truly are called by the
Lord in their hearts to do a certain thing, as I've established above with
scriptural applications. But God is still sovereign, and just because a
person is not rich, he is not left out of being blessed. In a Billy Graham
choir, one time I got to sing in it, and Ethel Waters was a guest singer.
Remember Ethel? She gave a testimony that I never forgot. She sang
"His Eye Is On The Sparrow" ("...and I know he watches me"). She said
that as a movie star, she had thousands and thousands of dollars go
through her hand, and she spent it all wrong and lived a wrong kind of
life. But, she said, that when God loves you, he will take away what you
trust in that is bad for you, and bring about your faith and trust in him
alone. She said in her case, she trusted in riches, and he took it all
away. She said "Now, I have Jesus, and I am going to look forward
to being in heaven." She added that those things made her far richer
than she ever was when she had all that money. She explained that it is
not for eveyone.
>
> This is an extreme example of the kind of credulous minds religious
> faith promotes. Minds ripe to fall prey to disloyal friends, quacks,
> healers, eloquent politicians and just about any charlatan that
> saunters by. I cannot find any comfort derived from religion that
> can outweigh such a mental handicap. Believers, will of course,
> disagree. No junky trashes his smack.
>
together under the heading of those who have made big time mistakes,
and this simply is not true, as I said in my previous post. When I was a
child someone was burning books from a certain library. Then they
decided to burn down the whole library, which was kind of stupid,
seeing as how, it was not the building itself that was the problem but
some of the books in it. All Christians do not fit your mould you are
trying to force them into, but a small group do. I won't disagree with
you that some are a real turn-off and make Christianity unattractive.
But Jesus didn't do that, and real Christianity is him, not these others.
When people follow people and not the Savior, that's the problem.
Some of the ones that you describe may be very immature Christians,
or even not Christians, but that has nothing to do with you and your
decisions.
>
Suzanne
>
Melancthon
Suzanne <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:zxGD6.3480$W35.73...@newssvr10-int.news.prodigy.com...
Suzanne,
Here is a quote which I think sums up your point. It is from
William Wilberforce, the whom, with the help of John Wesley,
rallied English public and parliamentary opinion to put an end
to slavery.
"With Christianity, professing Christians are little acquainted. Their views
of Christianity have been so cursory and superficial that they have little
more than perceived those exterior circumstances which distinguish it from
other forms of religion. These circumstances are some few facts, and perhaps
some leading doctrines and principles, of which they cannot be wholly
ignorant. But of the consequences, relations, and practical uses of these
principles, they have few ideas -- or none at all." William Wilberforce,
Real Christianity
Melancthon
I'm afraid that the type of people you mention, "good, unfortunate folk"
are not limited to giving time and money to religious quacks. The bold
and evil minded prey on them from every angle; hence psychic hotlines,
tarot card readers, channelers, elected officials, etc. On a simpler
level,
who kept shows like "Baywatch" on the air?
I couldn't agree more with your statement "Minds ripe to fall prey to
disloyal friends, quacks, healers, eloquent politicians and just about
any charlatan that saunters by". What I don't understand is why you hold
Christianity as being guilt of this. Is there a "bilk the credulous"
verse
I'm missing? There are certainly many passages about watching out for
religious charlatans who claim to be of the faithful in both the old and
new testaments. List provided on demand.
My take is that "caveat emptor" is a phase that should be remembered
before going into anything. If I tell someone to stay away from "Three
Card Monty" stands on streetcorners, and they ignore my advice and
lose their shirts, I don't think you can blame it on my advice.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>>It says no where in the Bible to torture people as those people
>>did to the people who they thought were witches.
>See Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:27, and Deuteronomy 18:11;
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a
wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them
with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
Deuteronomy 18:10-12;
There shall not be found among you any [users of magic]
For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD:
and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive
them out from before thee.
Nothing there about torturing.
And no, I am not just being pedantic.
>if you're looking for NT verification, try Galatians 5, and there
>are bits in Apocalypse that don't give me the impression that
>Christianity ws living in harmony with witchcraft.
I don't know what Suzanne's point was, I didn't read her post, but
*I* don't think the question is whether Christians approved of
witchcraft, the question is what should they have done about it
from a Biblical/early tradition point of view.
Torture as an officially sanctioned "tool" was apparently fairly
late in coming into being, 12th or 13th century I believe.
I don't know.
I will end with the N.T. verses I consider to be of interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 5
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or
with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then
you would have to go out of the world.
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any
so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or
an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler not even
to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge
those who are within the church?
13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN
FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 18
36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom
were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that
I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom
is not of this realm.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 13
28b The slaves said to him, "Do you want us, then, to go and gather
them up?'
29 "But he said, "No; for while you are gathering up the tares,
you may uproot the wheat with them.
30 "Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time
of the harvest I will say to the reapers, ""First gather up the
tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the
wheat into my barn.''
[]
36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His
disciples came to Him and said, "" Explain to us the parable of
the tares of the field.''
37 And He said, ""The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are
the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil
one;
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is
the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJKG
news:zxGD6.3480$W35.73...@newssvr10-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Here we go again.
Suzanne, you took the words right out of my mouth. Why don't you take your
religious rantings to alt.christianity? You are one of sci.archaeology's
most prolific trollers.
--
Philip Gould
Moderator - Am...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe amun-su...@yahoogroups.com
URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun
Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange.
tiglath
> >
> Permit me to alleviate you of these impressions for they are not
quite
> accurate.
This is the sort of thing the Bible allows for. It contains so many
contradictions that one can easily pick any passage to support any
position. The lack of CONSISTENCY, however, renders it an ambiguous
moral code inadequate for modern living.
> In the first place, Jesus neither intitiated the gospel of
> prospering a person, nor of poverty of a person.
Who says that He had to initiated for it to qualify as one of his
teachings. He merely had to endorse it and teach it. Goodness
wasn't invented by the Jews. The Greeks had excellent moral coded
much before Jesus.
> What he actually said
> was that "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil," *not* that
money was
> the root of all evil.
We must leave what he ACTUALLY said as impossible to determine. What
the bible says is all we have. We can only talk about the Jesus of
the Bible since the actual Jesus, if there was one, is not available
to us.
Having cleared that, I must disagree with your position. What you say
is a cop-out. It is like saying that sex is not a sin, only the love
of sex is.
Doesn't the pursuit of money imply the love for money? Why would one
pursue something one doesn't love once shelter and food are secured?
Come on.
The Bible in fact disagrees with it.
(All KJV)
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a
rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. " (Matthew
19:23)
In case you need clarification:
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God." (Matthew 19:24)
"For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)
"And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye
poor: for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20)
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for
a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25)
"And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How
hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"
(Mark 10:23)
The Old Testament notwithstanding.
Christians usually give Jesus primacy over any other prophet, in fact,
many try to distance themselves from the cruel and vindictive biblegod
of the Old Testament, and prefer, with good reason, the god of the New
Testament, The Son. I am not surprised that you can find quotes in
the bible that seem to contradict Jesus clear dictum about rich men,
conflict and errancy is a running theme of the bible.
Why do you think that so many monastic orders in the Middle Ages had a
vow of poverty? Who were they imitating? Whose teachings inspired
their renunciation of worldly goods and wealth?
If material wealth is a must to accomplish anything, as TV evangelist
would have it, the Vatican would have it, and many other rich churches
would have it, why didn't Jesus, an omniscient god tell us about it?
Why do rich clerics and Christians defy the clear warning in Matt
19:23,24, Luke 18:20, 25, and Mark 10:23, 25?
Everybody want to go to heaven but nobody wants to die, and very few
want to be poor. Fact.
> A Christian is one who
> is a descendant of Abraham through Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus,
being
> spiritually born of the faith.
A Christian is a follower of Christ first and foremost. How can a
Christian from, say Thailand, be a descendant of Abraham, etc.?
> Also, it is said in the Bible that if a person
> will give a tenth of his income to the Lord, he will give back a
blessing
> that will outmeasure what was given by the person.
I got once a letter from a Christian ministry asking for $100. "God
will repay you a hundred-fold," it read, and foretold that soon after
my contribution a windfall would bring me $10,000. I wrote back
saying I had a better deal for them. If they send ME $100, they could
keep the $9,900 I had coming. No reply.
> It says no where in the scripture that it is
> wrong to make money, it simply says that a person is to not *trust*
in
> money.
It says more than that, see quotes above. The problem is not making
money but keeping it beyond one's needs and becoming a "rich man."
We all know what "rich man" means, don't we?
> It says not to lay up treasures for yourself, meaning hoarding,
> which does not mean that you should not prepare for the future.
Isn't it a shame that an atheist has to tell you about the Bible?
(NIV, to avoid all those thou, hast, etc.)
"Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." (Colossians
3:2)
"In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has
cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:33)
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the
money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21)
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor..." (Luke 12:33)
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything
will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41)
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust
doth corrupt... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven... for
where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21)
"A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments
from his youth up. But, Jesus said, 'Yet you lack one thing: sell
all that you have, and distribute unto the poor, and you shall have
treasure in heaven: and come, follow me'" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21)
(Paul said) "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and
count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8
RSV)
Now, how is any of this consistent with saving money for oneself for
the future?
> In fact,
> it says that a man who does not take care of his family, which
includes
> preparing ahead of time for the future, is worse than an infidel, so
it is
> right to do those things.
I agree with you, I think that having money, savings, stock, financial
security, and the best of everything is great. But it is
inconsistent with being a Christian. I am not. There are three
things you can do to get over this conflict:
1. Head in the sand.
2. Look for other bible quotes that contradict Jesus stand on poverty.
Not much of a solution.
3. Exegesis.
Unfortunately, Jesus is, for once, much too clear for any of these
approaches to succeed in taking down the sign "Hypocrite" hanging from
the neck of rich Christians
The root of the problem is that the Jesus of the gospels believed that
the world would end soon.
"And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
(Matthew 3:2)
"And he said unto them, 'Verily I say unto you, That there be some of
them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have
seen the kingdom of God come with power.'" (Mark 9:1)
Therefore it made sense to him to forgo earthly concerns and pleasures
and set eyes firmly on the kingdom of heaven. Christians believed
this to be true. By the third century A.D., it became embarrassingly
obvious that Jesus might be wrong, since all that had stood there had
tasted death and there is only so much you can stretch the meaning of
"at hand." The Church Fathers took the challenge and began a serious
effort to interpret away those passages -- an effort continued by
today's apologists. The end result of all this is that people began
to set their eyes off heaven and set them on earth, hence the 10000
DOW.
Faced with this there are only three choices: (a) Accept that Jesus
was wrong, (b) Insist on Jesus being right and find new meanings for
the "kingdom of God"; and (c) sweep the whole matter under the carpet.
Fundamentalist choose (b), most Christians choose (c).
But... can the Christian just reject parts of the bible and keep
others? Reject the bad, or wrong, parts and keep the moral, or
right, parts? To do this, one must have a nonbiblical source of
morality which determines what to pick and what to reject. Perhaps
one has a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. Call it moral
intuition, or whatever. One may even have some abstract,
philosophical theory of ethics which allows one to decide which
biblical precepts are morally acceptable. A person who uses these
sources as guides to morality apparently thinks that his or her own
gut feeling or moral system is a better guide to morality than the
bible and thus would have to admit that the bible is an adequate
source for morality and conduct.
> But it says not to trust in them, but to trust in God.
> For example, if a person has a lot of stock, and there is a stock
market
> crash, the Lord will see to it that he has what he needs, if they
trust him.
Great Depression?
> If God meant that all should give
> away all their money, then no one would have survived to preach the
> gospel.
Good point. Talk to the boss about it. HE won't change his tune.
> The ground rule is, though that a person should not trust in his
riches,
> but in God.
Another cop-out.
What on earth does that mean? Trust his riches? Such a fuzzy
concept.
Jesus was very clear, give away what you have. I don't think it is
good advice, but it is clear.
I know it is a problem and seemingly one way out of it is to put words
in Jesus mouth or look for other more promising passages and concepts
like "trusting in riches," but it won't do. Please re-read the
verses I quoted. They are clear an unambiguous, there is not
"trusting in riches" about it. Sorry.
> Both the poor and the rich can be Christians,
> and be so effectively. It depends upon what God wants for them.
Are you correcting Jesus? Hope not.
> I've never heard Benny Hinn say that he healed someone. He
> usually says that God healed them, not he himself.
You are right. A distinction without difference. He, not God,
pockets the money. And he is a very RICH MAN.
tiglath
"Melancthon" <stil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bpeh6$d85$1...@dns3.cae.ca...
> I couldn't agree more with your statement "Minds ripe to fall
prey to
> disloyal friends, quacks, healers, eloquent politicians and just
about
> any charlatan that saunters by". What I don't understand is why
you hold
> Christianity as being guilt of this. Is there a "bilk the
credulous"
I did say "religious faith promotes..." that kind of mentality. ALL
religious faith. I use Christianity to illustrate the point because
is the only religion I know well in the doctrinal details.
> There are certainly many passages about watching out for
> religious charlatans who claim to be of the faithful in both the
old and
> new testaments. List provided on demand.
I believe this is aimed at not believing in other gods and false
prophets. It is all right, however, to believe in OUR god and OUR
prophets implicitly.
> My take is that "caveat emptor" is a phase that should be
remembered
> before going into anything.
No less when reading the Bible.
Michael Kuettner
>
> "Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote in message
> news:JCLD6.1612$OH6.28...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > Permit me to alleviate you of these impressions for they are not
> quite
> > accurate.
>
> This is the sort of thing the Bible allows for. It contains so many
> contradictions that one can easily pick any passage to support any
> position. The lack of CONSISTENCY, however, renders it an ambiguous
> moral code inadequate for modern living.
>
ruined
the arch groups with her ceaseless proselytizing. And she won't get your
arguments; they fly over her head. She just babbles on.
Thank you,
Michael Kuettner
<note follow-ups>
Michael Kuettner
>
Hello, Melancthon !
This was also crossposted to shm and we really don't need Suzy666
over here. Please remove shm from the groups before replying to
the stupid bitch.
Thank you very much,
Michael Kuettner
<note follow-ups>
Michael Kuettner
PJKG <z...@mehadodopublishing.com> wrote in message
news:1p_D6.1701$991.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote in message
> news:zxGD6.3480$W35.73...@newssvr10-int.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > Here we go again.
>
> Suzanne, you took the words right out of my mouth. Why don't you take
your
> religious rantings to alt.christianity? You are one of
sci.archaeology's
> most prolific trollers.
>
> --
> Philip Gould
Hello, Philip !
Please remove shm from your headers before replying to Suzy666.
We've got enough troubles over here.
Michael Kuettner
>
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:NMFB6.352$lH5....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net...
> >
> > Nobody here wants to argue the above.
> > The threads here started with flat earth, and this was debunked.
> >
> > Michael Kuettner
>
> The threads came from Cultural Cleansing in Afghanistan, and moved
directly
> into whether Christianity had nurtured or impeded western development.
The
> flat-earth business was a diversionary tactic to get off the main
business
> of Christianity's malign influence - and a successful one too. Also a
usual
> one for some of the proponents of a benign church, who win a side
argument
> (or in this case had it won for them) and believe and claim they have
> therefore won the main one. Not so.
>
The thing that is fascinating to me is : Everybody who wants to bash the
church
tries to base his arguments on the middle ages (like the flat earth).
Why has nobody in this thread mentioned that the worst points of
doctrine
happened within the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" ?
Like the "Virginal Conception" in 1854 or the "Infallibility of the
pope" in 1870 ?
Or the (in)famous "Syllabum Errorum" of Pius IX. (also around 1870)?
Is it too painful to recognize that the worst doctrines of the "Holy
Seat" happened
just a century ago ?
Regards,
Michael Kuettner
Paul J. Gans
> Regards,
I quite agree. Perhaps it comes from not really knowing the
subject?
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
*That* would be the fellow who doesn't know his subject.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:vm3E6.18$6o3...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Peter Nyikos
>Melancthon <stil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9bpcs4$m2g$1...@dns3.cae.ca...
>>
>Hello, Melancthon !
>This was also crossposted to shm and we really don't need Suzy666
>over here. Please remove shm from the groups before replying to
>the stupid bitch.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Derogatory sexist remark noted. No wonder Bryn Fraser
found Michael Kuttner so much to his liking.
I don't see any more stupidity from Suzanne than I do from
Tiglath. I have often tried to engage Tiglath in discussion
on Christianity, but he knows that I, unlike most Christians,
have also spent part of my adulthood as an agnostic after
a childhood and adolescence as a Catholic. So he has
avoided all mention of religion in followup to me.
He also knows that I am a far better reasoner than he;
he once had the chutzpah to accuse ME of logical
fallacies, and I set the record straight with two
posts, one of which is reposted below.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
>Michael Kuettner
><note follow-ups>
I have restored s.h.m.
=============== repost begins here
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Subject: Dime-a-dozen fallacies by Tiglath
References: <97e3tq$1i...@theusc.csd.sc.edu> <3A9D9F81...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> <97m3sh$99t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> <3a9e8...@binarykiller.newsfeeds.com> <97m96u$3h7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> <3a9e9...@binarykiller.newsfeeds.com> <97mof6$l40$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> <97o37i$1h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu> <97oibo$k4u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
This is my second followup to a post by Tiglath on the
thread,
Women warriors of the Middle Ages
where I counted six fallacies by Tiglath AFTER he claimed
to find numerous fallacies in what I wrote. They
fell into four categories, with three examples of
fallacy category number two.
In the interests of completeness, I backtrack a bit
to three fallacies that I did not number.
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> writes:
>"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>news:97o37i$1h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
====================== begin restoration of unmarked snip by Tiglath
>>By the way, here is something marginally--but only marginally--
>>relevant to your ACTUAL assertion:
==================== end of included restoration
>> The biggest naval engagement the British fleet engaged in
>> since WWII was in the Falklands, when Britain not only
>> had a queen instead of a king, but a woman Prime Minister,
>> Maggie Thatcher.
>I got news for you. In England the Queen reigns but doesn't govern.
Fallacy number 7:
(T1) The Phantom Error Correction Scam. This consists of lecturing
someone on a topic as though one were correcting an error of
the one being lectured. Often accompanied by unsupported
assertions like "________ clearly doesn't understand that..."
or "__________ is obviously ignorant of the fact that...".
Often, the lecture is on a brand new theme that had never
been mentioned before by the person being lectured to.
>Does your university know that they have something teaching
>mathematics which has such an inferior, faulty, and fallacious grasp
>of logic?
Fallacy number 8, as fallacious and dishonest a question as asking:
"Do people know that you haven't stopped beating your wife yet?
[...]
> The Brown Nose ignores the proven
>facts I presented about gender and aggression.
Fallacy number 9, another Phantom Error Correction (T1).
Also, Tiglath is taking dishonest advantage of having
made an unmarked snip of:
================= Begin repost
>I give the man supporting statistics, research about women and aggression
>the two substantive nouns of my statement, and he comes back with this
>idiotic rebuttal. Nitwit.
It wasn't *intended* to be a rebuttal, turkey. Have someone
else on Gans's team explain the term "red herring" to you.
=================== end repeat repost
> In another post he
>suggest that the modern studies would not apply to the Middle Ages, a
>time characterized by the longests wars in history, fought by men.
Fallacy number 10: a deliberate misreading of something
I said to Gans, who prostituted himself for Tiglath
by pretending to be concerned about Hines going off-topic
when in fact the modern studies Tiglath trumpeted
were even MORE off-topic:
(1) they were psychology rather than history.
(2) they introduced a brand new off-topic theme of
men being more aggressive than women, in the guise
of supporting a claim that he shoved down his memory
hole (see fallacy number two again).
>This is how little history he knows.
Fallacy number 11, an instance of:
(T2) The Broken.Usenet.Promise. This consists of an opening
salvo like "False." or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something
that might fool a complete ignoramus into thinking that the
opening salvo is being justified, whereas it is either irrelevant
or actually supports the claims of the opponent.
> There is no reason to
>disbelieve that men in the Middle Ages committed 80 percent or more of
>all murders.
Fallacy number 12, another Phantom Error Correction (T1).
>- Omission of key evidence. The Brown Nose seems to think that he
>can establish a trend and a general fact with a single example.
Fallacy number 13, pretending that my words,
By the way, here is something marginally--but only marginally--
relevant to your ACTUAL assertion:
never existed.
> He
>has presented no evidence to refute my claim that women are much less
>aggressive than men,
Fallacy number 14, confusing the issue. The issue was Tiglath's
ACTUAL assertion:
"If women were in charge of the world there would be less aggression..."
> and therefore a world run by women, would be free
>from the testosterone of male political leaders and have less
>aggression -- a valid inference.
I dispute the validity of that inference, especially
since the two psychological studies had to do with
individual acts of violence, rather than large-scale
happenings like wars.
>We can add to this list of fallacies of Wishful Thinking and Wrong
>Conclusion,
Well, your last inference does fall under those headings,
IMHO, but I'm waiting to see whether you can make
support it with sound reasoning and more relevant studies.
> as the Brown Nose wishes intensely that his master wishes
>be true -- poor baby --
Fallacy number 15: Tiglath is guilty of intense wishful
thinking that I am anywhere NEAR as subservient to the
wishes of Hines as he is to the wishes of Gans.
> and as he draws conclusions other than the one
>supported by the evidence.
Fallacy number 16:
(T5) The Dogmatism Reversal Attack, which paints someone as
dogmatically alleging something when the person is actually
holding out for documentation of something his/her adversaries
are dogmatically asserting without documentation.
Snip minor quibble about the term "stepped down". I'll
grant that Maggie was forced to step down.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
=============== end included repost
Jonathan Stone
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> writes:
[snip usual Nyikos ad-homiems]
No archaeology here. Why post to sci.arch and alt.arch?
Who is this alleged topologist, who cannot grasp even so simple a
topological structure as a Newsgroups: line?
followups set.
D. Spencer Hines
contradictions that one can easily pick any passage to support any
position. The lack of CONSISTENCY, however, renders it an ambiguous
moral code inadequate for modern living."
Twaddle.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen, philosophers and divines."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:9bq0jo$l9g$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
|
| "Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote in message
| news:JCLD6.1612$OH6.28...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
| > >
| > Permit me to alleviate you of these impressions for they are not
| quite
| > accurate.
|
| This is the sort of thing the Bible allows for. It contains so many
| contradictions that one can easily pick any passage to support any
| position. The lack of CONSISTENCY, however, renders it an ambiguous
| moral code inadequate for modern living.
<twaddlesnip>
tiglath
"Mr. Hines" wrote
> "This is the sort of thing the Bible allows for.
> It contains so many contradictions that one
> can easily pick any passage to support any
> position. The lack of CONSISTENCY,
> however, renders it an ambiguous
> moral code inadequate for modern living."
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Twaddle.
>
Such powerful counter-argument!
Perhaps Mr. Hines would like, if he has the mental capacity, to expand on
his usual non-arguments, fallacies, and static; and tell us what moral
guidance is there to find in the Bible when facing the moral puzzlement of
modern issues like abortion, contraception, distribution of limited supplies
(from organ donors), pollution, deforestation, overpopulation, corporate
raiding, euthanasia, the right to privacy, patents, copyrights, and many
complex areas a decent system of ethics should address.
I repeat. If the bible is supposed to be the guide to moral conduct it is
woefully inadequate.
tiglath
"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote
>
> I don't see any more stupidity from Suzanne
> than I do from Tiglath.
I recommend a visit to the Laser Center. Both eyes...
> He also knows that I am a far better reasoner than he;
...and cortex.
patrick burke
I won't try to put words in Mr. Hines mouth, but in my view, your
argument is a nonstarter. Would you say the bible is inadequate because
there is no commandment: "Thou shalt cross at the green, not in between."?
The message of JC in the NT comes down to: Love God with all your heart and
soul, and love your fellow man as you love yourself. Everything else is
understood from this first command. Why does it not go into more depth?
Because you don't need it. God also provided us with a brain, we can figure
it out. Implementing it is harder, but knowing it is simple.
>
>
>
>
RA95
| and tell us what moral
| guidance is there to find in the Bible when facing the moral
puzzlement of
| modern issues like abortion, contraception,
Well, at least it DOES tell husbands what to do if the have any
suspicion that their wife is cheating on them. There's a magic truth
elixir test handed down from yahweh himself.
RA
tiglath
> I won't try to put words in Mr. Hines mouth, but in my view, your
> argument is a nonstarter. Would you say the bible is inadequate because
> there is no commandment: "Thou shalt cross at the green, not in between."?
> The message of JC in the NT comes down to: Love God with all your heart
and
> soul, and love your fellow man as you love yourself. Everything else is
> understood from this first command. Why does it not go into more depth?
> Because you don't need it. God also provided us with a brain, we can
figure
> it out. Implementing it is harder, but knowing it is simple.
Wow!
Your argument seems a non-starter itself. I've never heard of the Two
Commandments. Why would God give us at least ten commandments if we can
derive everything from just two?
"Love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself" The rest we can
figure out. Is that it?
Are you recently arrived on this planet? The jails are full of people who
can't figure it out. That is with ten commandments. And that is only
those who get caught, a small fraction of those who go through life screwing
other people.
"As you love yourself" is also a useless exaggeration. If I REALLY had to
treat my neighbor as good as I treat myself then he would be entitled to
have my wife, my car, and all the other things I do and get out of
self-love. Pretty useless commandment, I'd say.
If on the other hand our brain has a moral intuition to know how distill the
essence of general precepts to be applied to particular cases, then the
Bible is not the source of our morality, but just a partial summary of that
which we already know.
I won't even go into the way the Bible divides human behavior into virtue
and sin in ways that have nothing to do with human happiness.
I won't even go in the way the Bible endorses slavery and treats women. And
of course there is much, much more.
If the bible was a good source of morality, people who read it would be
morally superior. I can't tell by the behavior of people those who read the
bible and those who don't. Can you?
Finally, what guidance does "Love God" gives us to resolve moral dilemmas?
Wow!
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, Suriol's argument is indeed a non-starter.
It is also a red herring and a prime example of bait and switch logic.
Suriol has read very few serious books in his life. His understanding
of higher thought ---- abstract thought ---- historical thought ---- is
*very* pinched, truncated and circumscribed.
Suriol is trying to say the Holy Bible is no good and should be ignored,
indeed condemned, because it does not:
1. Contain The Secret Of Life.
2. Answer Any And All Questions.
3. Serve As A Complete Moral Code, Legal Code and Guide To Life.
Therefore his "arguments" ---- such as they are ---- are balderdash,
twaddle and gibberish. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury ---- signifying nothing.
José Suriol is an uneducated, man, desperately and stubbornly set and
steeped in the foul juices of his prejudices ---- including a virulent
strain of racism ---- that's why I've labelled him KKK.
He desperately wants to be honoured and respected as an intelligent man,
an educated man, an honourable man ---- even a sere on USENET. His
Hispanic pride seems to demand those tokens of respect as a matter of
course ---- unearned though they may be.
But he just can't measure up. He falls far, far short of the mark in
all categories of accomplishment, articulation and acumen ---- and he
consistently comes a cropper as he spouts gibberish, twaddle and racism.
Hines draws attention to and exposes his manifold failings, sins and
wickedness when he does so.
Ergo, Suriol hates Hines.
It's really no more complicated than that.
When one turns over a rock and exposes a snake, the snake is none too
happy about it.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Exitus Acta Probat.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"patrick burke" <pbur...@home.com> wrote in message
news:d1kE6.51246$C55.4...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
Vires et Honor.
Bob
"RA95" <xRI...@Qwest.Net> wrote in message
>
> Well, at least it DOES tell husbands what to do if the have any
> suspicion that their wife is cheating on them. There's a magic truth
> elixir test handed down from yahweh himself.
Do you have a reference
King James does not contain the words
suspicion,
cheat,
magic,
elixir,
test, or
yahweh
Bob
patrick burke
>
> "patrick burke" <pbur...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:d1kE6.51246$C55.4...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > I won't try to put words in Mr. Hines mouth, but in my view, your
> > argument is a nonstarter. Would you say the bible is inadequate because
> > there is no commandment: "Thou shalt cross at the green, not in
between."?
> > The message of JC in the NT comes down to: Love God with all your heart
> and
> > soul, and love your fellow man as you love yourself. Everything else is
> > understood from this first command. Why does it not go into more depth?
> > Because you don't need it. God also provided us with a brain, we can
> figure
> > it out. Implementing it is harder, but knowing it is simple.
>
> Wow!
>
> Your argument seems a non-starter itself. I've never heard of the Two
> Commandments.
Can't help what you don't know about Christian religion now can I?
> Why would God give us at least ten commandments if we can
> derive everything from just two?
Because our understanding of God matures with time? By the way, aside
from the having no false gods etc. which of the ten commandments don't you
like?
>
> "Love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself" The rest we can
> figure out. Is that it?
Oh it gives a few guidelines (forgiveness etc.) but yes that's it.
>
> Are you recently arrived on this planet? The jails are full of people
who
> can't figure it out. That is with ten commandments. And that is only
> those who get caught, a small fraction of those who go through life
screwing
> other people.
No lived here all my life. The world is also filled with people who
think the world is flat, created in six days, etc. etc. Never mind the ones
who understand but can't implement it. They are the majority I think.
>
> "As you love yourself" is also a useless exaggeration. If I REALLY had to
> treat my neighbor as good as I treat myself then he would be entitled to
> have my wife, my car, and all the other things I do and get out of
> self-love. Pretty useless commandment, I'd say.
It's poetic not literal. Like "liberty" is an inalienable right in the
Declaration of Independence? Do we open the jails? It gives us an ideal to
live up to anyway. Your wife is a silly argument (she is an independent
creation who has her own will, and has chosen to swear fidelity to you, and
you to her), but as to your car, yes you should share it with your fellow
man.
>
> If on the other hand our brain has a moral intuition to know how distill
the
> essence of general precepts to be applied to particular cases, then the
> Bible is not the source of our morality, but just a partial summary of
that
> which we already know.
No the bible is the source of the essence. Without it we would not
grasp that we are to love our enemies, as well as our friends. The details
are left for us to work out, like I should be sharing my car.
>
> I won't even go into the way the Bible divides human behavior into virtue
> and sin in ways that have nothing to do with human happiness.
Irrelevant. I am not a Biblical.
>
> I won't even go in the way the Bible endorses slavery and treats women.
And
> of course there is much, much more.
Yes it is often incorrect. In my faith Jesus was God on earth. His
teachings in the Bible occupy a special authority. When they contradict,
either specifically, or in spirit, other ideas the solution is obvious. The
other idea is wrong.
>
> If the bible was a good source of morality, people who read it would be
> morally superior. I can't tell by the behavior of people those who read
the
> bible and those who don't. Can you?
I can tell those who implement yes. But just reading it? That is a silly
idea. Many people who read the penal code break the law, why is the bible
different?
>
> Finally, what guidance does "Love God" gives us to resolve moral dilemmas?
Since I love God I choose to "love" my fellow man. They cannot be
separated.
>
> Wow!
>
>
>
>
>
Steve G
Bob <b...@abcTools.Com> wrote in message
news:9bsth...@enews2.newsguy.com...
tiglath
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:Ov6WJbpyAHA.344@cpmsnbbsa07...
I told you so.
He does not have the mental capacity to address the argument, so he attacks
the arguer, as it is his custom, hoping a few people might think insults and
other irrelevancies amount to a valid argument.
> Suriol is trying to say the Holy Bible
> is no good and should be ignored,
> indeed condemned, because it does not:
Now he puts words into my mouth so that he can attack his strawman at
leisure. Mr. Hines STILL thinks he is addressing the O.J. Simpson jury.
I never said that the Bible should be ignored. It is a wonderful book full
of poetry and stories people told thousands of years ago. Not unlike
Herodotus' Histories. It is not to be confused, however, with a good moral
code like the Aretaic, Kantian, or Mill's.
> 1. Contain The Secret Of Life.
>
> 2. Answer Any And All Questions.
>
> 3. Serve As A Complete Moral Code, Legal Code and Guide To Life.
Absurd exaggerations further hurt his weak rebuttal.
>
> Therefore....
<well deserved snip>
Try harder, Mr. Hines.
Mr. Hines, it it my good luck to have over twenty years of formal education
in European private schools and universities. Your wishing, wanting, and
repeating that I am uneducated cannot change this fact. You would not be
uneducated either, if all that transpires about you were true. If it is,
you have been educated well beyond your capacity. Dozens of your posts
attest to this fact, as you continue to be a poor arguer, who tediously puts
personal attacks where well constructed arguments should be. I couldn't
care less what you think of me, Mr. Hines, as all you may aspire is to
remain a mild form of amusement as far as I am concerned. But you should
know that when we write we write about ourselves, knowingly or not. People
in s.h.m., therefore, have got to know you quite well. By your own hand
you have taught us that you are dishonest, untrustworthy, childish,
self-aggrandizing, a liar, and a dishonorable coward. When your reptilian
character bestirs and posts you needlessly corroborate that much again.
Have a nice day.
Tiglath
Neville Lindsay
Fascinating how Gans always strives to bend a perfectly polite and sensible
suggestion into a personal attack. A sad and mean-spirited specimen of
humanity, untouched by Christian virtues or spirit.
Michael, I agree that it is indeed restrictive to pick on the mediaeval era.
It started with the struggle for supremacy, where very early the Roman
church organised attacks against various other churches which were carrying
different lines of teaching, and labelled them heresies to be stamped out,
starting with Marcion and moving on through the others. The 'triumph of
Christianity' gave the power for the suppression of opposing lines of
thought, and this became a prime objective - not only heresies but opposing
religions which were subjected to persecutions which made the sporadic and
half-hearted ones against Christianity pale by comparison. This went on of
course through the middle ages with some very unpleasant aspects, and right
up to the present day, where the Holy Office still has its Grand Inquisitor
and persists in hounding dissidents and suppressing anything it can get away
with.
While the doctrinal aberrations did start with Paul's gnostic perversion of
the teachings of the Kingdom Movement, no period had a mortgage on their
continued development, and as you say, some real howlers (horrors) are of
recent vintage, which do indeed give the lie to Enlightenment - at least
from the Christian Churches point of view, which is what this thread has
been about. And just not the Roman church - Luther's writings and
pronouncements make very sad reading indeed, as do Calvin's and the
procession of successors, whose intolerance and desire to interfere in the
lives of not only Christians, but anyone who comes within the orbit of their
influence and can be coerced to if not believe, to obey. This is still
exercised to the fullest extent to this day, not just in the hotspots of the
Balkans and elsewhere, but also including those who not only use Usenet to
foist their ideas on unwilling audiences, but also try to gag or discredit
those who dissent from their diktats by use of freedoms to restrict freedoms
of others.
NL
tiglath
> > "As you love yourself" is also a useless exaggeration. If I REALLY had
to
> > treat my neighbor as good as I treat myself then he would be entitled to
> > have my wife, my car, and all the other things I do and get out of
> > self-love. Pretty useless commandment, I'd say.
>
> It's poetic not literal.
I see. Poetic truth.
What good is a poetic moral code to guide people who can't understand a
butterfly ballot? When the stakes are so high, after all, it is a matter
or heaven or hell, wouldn't you thing that the all-good Deity would make the
rules clear, unless it had a morbid sense of humor. But humor can be
discounted. Not a single shred of it is to be found in the bible. Thus,
the matter is quite serious. We face heaven and hell and the rule book in
our hand is "poetic not literal." The mother of all cluster foxtrots in
the making.
> Like "liberty" is an inalienable right in the
> Declaration of Independence? Do we open the jails? It gives us an ideal to
> live up to anyway.
I beg to differ. The Founding Documents explained pretty well the limits
and meaning of liberty. Even so, we need judges to help us out when it
comes to apply these guidelines to particular circumstances. It is
understandable, it is the work of men. Now, when it comes to a divinely
inspired book whose authors's hands were guided by an omniscient and
omnipotent god, I would expect the holy book to do at least, as well as our
Founding Fathers, and there is every reason why they should exceed them.
Yet, our Founding Fathers are the epitomy of clarity and lucidity when
compared to the hotch-potch of the Bible.
> Your wife is a silly argument
I'll probably have to email her reply, but I'll let her know.
> (she is an independent
> creation who has her own will, and has chosen to swear fidelity to you,
and
> you to her), but as to your car, yes you should share it with your fellow
> man.
In Eskimo society you offend your host if you don't sleep with his wife.
Perhaps you forgot. They are the only people I know who live the Christian
teaching to the hilt, in this respect.
When you say "poetic not literal" you defeat your own argument. A moral
code is not about sonets, meter, cadence, and rhyme, but about setting
proper standards of conduct. How is that task possible if the words "love
your neighbor as you love yourself" don't mean what they say? This rule
brings more problems than solutions.
> No the bible is the source of the essence. Without it we would not
> grasp that we are to love our enemies, as well as our friends.
I submit to you that With It we still cannot grasp it. Did Joshua love the
Canaanites as he loved himself? God, the Father, used to help the
Israelites wipe out their enemies with dreadful vengeance, hardly an example
to help us grasp the concept of loving one's enemies.
Can't help what you don't know about Christian religion now, can I?
> The details
> are left for us to work out, like I should be sharing my car.
According to you then everyone should have his car keys by the mailbox so
any neighbor can use it, since we love them as we love ourselves.
Wow!
I see how "left for us to work out" is working real well.
>
> I can tell those who implement yes. But just reading it? That is a
silly
> idea. Many people who read the penal code break the law, why is the bible
> different?
The Bible is divinely inspired, haven't you heard? The penal code isn't.
> >
> > Finally, what guidance does "Love God" gives us to resolve moral
dilemmas?
>
> Since I love God I choose to "love" my fellow man.
Non-sequitur. Loving god doesn't imply loving your fellow man
> They cannot be separated.
Who says? God one thing, men another, they can be separated, quite easily.
D. Spencer Hines
José Suriol's volatile, anarchistic, anti-clerical, Latin temper has
indeed boiled over ---- again.
KKK is on the rampage looking for a cross to burn on someone's lawn.
Of course his polemic, infra, is not defined by the Cozy Clique as an
_ad hominem_ personal attack.
No, their in-house, carefully tailored definitions don't permit that.
Suriol is simply "telling it like it is" in their minds ---- and he must
not be criticised for his intemperate blather and transparently
"frightened squirrel" response.
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:9btik1$271$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Jonathan Stone
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
No archaeology here. (I cant even guess what *might* be here).
followups set to s.h.m., as its off-topic and off-thread for the
archaeology groups.
D. Spencer Hines
blather, so follow-ups are set to the archaeology groups.
Perhaps they'll unearth something of value in it ---- although I
seriously doubt it.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Jonathan Stone" <jona...@champagne.dsg.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:9btnir$o5q$1...@champagne.dsg.stanford.edu...
Jonathan Stone
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>Well, there is absolutely no History in Stone's squib post of arrant
>blather, so follow-ups are set to the archaeology groups.
Still no archaeology here.
>Perhaps they'll unearth something of value in it ---- although I
>seriously doubt it.
Really? So rare these days, to see someone big enough to concede that
their posts contribute nothing of value.
Neville Lindsay
Yes, it is very positive in some areas - 'You will not suffer a witch to
live' and similar niceties.
NL
Neville Lindsay
> >
> > "As you love yourself" is also a useless exaggeration. If I REALLY had
to
> > treat my neighbor as good as I treat myself then he would be entitled to
> > have my wife, my car, and all the other things I do and get out of
> > self-love. Pretty useless commandment, I'd say.
>
> It's poetic not literal.
Hang on, is this an ethical precept or a poem? How can you have an ethical
base where the words do not mean what they say? Is this why so many
Christians are so sinful - there are no set standards, just poetry to enjoy?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Steve G" <nomail_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:H%rE6.644$3_1.6...@news.uswest.net...
> Numbers 5:11-31
Yes - the accused wife gets to drink a solution of the rotted offal scraped
from the sacrificial floor - if she gets dysentry and dies or gets sick, it
shows she is guilty. A merciful and loving god at work.
NL
Neville Lindsay
Has Hines ever posted anything of value? Merely snide comments, followed by
his ostentatious and pretentious sig. One of our resident loonies.
NL
Suzanne
>
> "Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote in message
> news:JCLD6.1612$OH6.28...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > Permit me to alleviate you of these impressions for they are not
> quite
> > accurate.
>
> contradictions that one can easily pick any passage to support any
> position. The lack of CONSISTENCY, however, renders it an ambiguous
> moral code inadequate for modern living.
>
about something that Christianity advanced as a belief, and I was
letting you know that what you said was not in the Bible at all. Now, just
listen to me a minute. If you had said that the Bismark never fired on a
ship, wouldn't someone say to you, "you are mistaken, the Bismark has
fired on ships?" This is no more than that. You find what you think are
inconsistancies in the Bible, but I find that when I study it the more, any
seeming conflict melts away with the explanations of other verses.
However, I will grant you that it says that to some, it will be a rock of
offense, but to others, it will be the words of life. So, you are right in that
*to some* it will appear to have conflicts. It does not to me.
>
> > In the first place, Jesus neither intitiated the gospel of
> > prospering a person, nor of poverty of a person.
>
> Who says that He had to initiated for it to qualify as one of his
> teachings. He merely had to endorse it and teach it. Goodness
> wasn't invented by the Jews. The Greeks had excellent moral coded
> much before Jesus.
>
I don't think that he endorsed poverty. He taught that we were
to follow the scriptures. In the scriptures it says that the ant is
someone we should follow as an example, and the ant works
very hard and prepares for the Winter. So, it must not be evil
to save for a time when you might be in need, keeping a reserve.
On the other hand, he says not to hoard earthly treasures. The
former is being wise, the latter is being greedy. There is quite
a difference. When he told the Rich Young Ruler to give his
riches to the poor, he was saying to him, "turn loose of what
you are hoarding, and God will bless you for it." He was not
telling the young man to live in poverty. He was giving that
man a particular remedy for what would meet his real need,
which was not to make money into a god to be worshipped.
>
You said Goodness wasn't invented by the Jews, and you say
that the Greeks had excellent moral codes before Jesus, but
before the Greeks and the Jews were, Jesus was. : ) : ) : )
(see John 1:1-5, and verse 14 also.) (aren't I terrible?)
>
> > What he actually said
> > was that "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil," *not* that
> money was
> > the root of all evil.
>
> We must leave what he ACTUALLY said as impossible to determine. What
> the bible says is all we have. We can only talk about the Jesus of
> the Bible since the actual Jesus, if there was one, is not available
> to us.
>
No, I believe the Bible does tell what Jesus had to say. Fragments
of the New Testament books have been found, dating it to the first
century A.D. The whole N.T. was written within the first century. That
is close enough to tell what a man has said. In our day, we quote
people who lived 200, 400 years ago, and we don't doubt that they
said what we have learned. We quote Abraham Lincoln, Patrick
Henry, Nathan Hale, but we don't doubt that they said the things that
are attributed to them. In the days of the New Testament, they are
quoting things that happened within that Century, which would be
no problem at all, especially since there are other books which
verify the teachings. People often say that the Bible should not be
used to verify itself, but that is not right, because the Bible is many
books, and could verify each other easily because they really are
separate books.
>
> Having cleared that, I must disagree with your position. What you say
> is a cop-out. It is like saying that sex is not a sin, only the love
> of sex is.
>
I am speaking straight arrow to you, but I think that you are living
on another plane and you think that I am the odd one. : )
>
>
> Doesn't the pursuit of money imply the love for money? Why would one
> pursue something one doesn't love once shelter and food are secured?
>
>
> Come on.
>
> The Bible in fact disagrees with it.
>
> (All KJV)
>
> "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a
> rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. " (Matthew
> 19:23)
>
> In case you need clarification:
>
> "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the
> eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
> God." (Matthew 19:24)
>
> "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a
> rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)
>
> "And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye
> poor: for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20)
>
> "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for
> a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25)
>
> "And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How
> hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"
> (Mark 10:23)
>
> The Old Testament notwithstanding.
>
> Christians usually give Jesus primacy over any other prophet, in fact,
> many try to distance themselves from the cruel and vindictive biblegod
> of the Old Testament, and prefer, with good reason, the god of the New
> Testament, The Son. I am not surprised that you can find quotes in
> the bible that seem to contradict Jesus clear dictum about rich men,
> conflict and errancy is a running theme of the bible.
>
> Why do you think that so many monastic orders in the Middle Ages had a
> vow of poverty? Who were they imitating? Whose teachings inspired
> their renunciation of worldly goods and wealth?
>
> If material wealth is a must to accomplish anything, as TV evangelist
> would have it, the Vatican would have it, and many other rich churches
> would have it, why didn't Jesus, an omniscient god tell us about it?
> Why do rich clerics and Christians defy the clear warning in Matt
> 19:23,24, Luke 18:20, 25, and Mark 10:23, 25?
>
> Everybody want to go to heaven but nobody wants to die, and very few
> want to be poor. Fact.
>
>
>
>
> > A Christian is one who
> > is a descendant of Abraham through Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus,
> being
> > spiritually born of the faith.
>
> A Christian is a follower of Christ first and foremost. How can a
> Christian from, say Thailand, be a descendant of Abraham, etc.?
>
>
>
> > Also, it is said in the Bible that if a person
> > will give a tenth of his income to the Lord, he will give back a
> blessing
> > that will outmeasure what was given by the person.
>
> I got once a letter from a Christian ministry asking for $100. "God
> will repay you a hundred-fold," it read, and foretold that soon after
> my contribution a windfall would bring me $10,000. I wrote back
> saying I had a better deal for them. If they send ME $100, they could
> keep the $9,900 I had coming. No reply.
>
>
>
>
> > It says no where in the scripture that it is
> > wrong to make money, it simply says that a person is to not *trust*
> in
> > money.
>
> It says more than that, see quotes above. The problem is not making
> money but keeping it beyond one's needs and becoming a "rich man."
>
> We all know what "rich man" means, don't we?
>
>
>
>
> > It says not to lay up treasures for yourself, meaning hoarding,
> > which does not mean that you should not prepare for the future.
>
> Isn't it a shame that an atheist has to tell you about the Bible?
>
> (NIV, to avoid all those thou, hast, etc.)
>
> "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." (Colossians
> 3:2)
>
> "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has
> cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:33)
>
> "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the
> money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21)
>
> "Sell your possessions and give to the poor..." (Luke 12:33)
>
> "But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything
> will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41)
>
> "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust
> doth corrupt... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven... for
> where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21)
>
> "A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments
> from his youth up. But, Jesus said, 'Yet you lack one thing: sell
> all that you have, and distribute unto the poor, and you shall have
> treasure in heaven: and come, follow me'" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21)
>
> (Paul said) "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and
> count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8
> RSV)
>
> Now, how is any of this consistent with saving money for oneself for
> the future?
>
>
>
>
>
> > In fact,
> > it says that a man who does not take care of his family, which
> includes
> > preparing ahead of time for the future, is worse than an infidel, so
> it is
> > right to do those things.
>
> I agree with you, I think that having money, savings, stock, financial
> security, and the best of everything is great. But it is
> inconsistent with being a Christian. I am not. There are three
> things you can do to get over this conflict:
>
> 1. Head in the sand.
> 2. Look for other bible quotes that contradict Jesus stand on poverty.
> Not much of a solution.
> 3. Exegesis.
>
> Unfortunately, Jesus is, for once, much too clear for any of these
> approaches to succeed in taking down the sign "Hypocrite" hanging from
> the neck of rich Christians
>
> The root of the problem is that the Jesus of the gospels believed that
> the world would end soon.
>
> "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
> (Matthew 3:2)
>
> "And he said unto them, 'Verily I say unto you, That there be some of
> them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have
> seen the kingdom of God come with power.'" (Mark 9:1)
>
> Therefore it made sense to him to forgo earthly concerns and pleasures
> and set eyes firmly on the kingdom of heaven. Christians believed
> this to be true. By the third century A.D., it became embarrassingly
> obvious that Jesus might be wrong, since all that had stood there had
> tasted death and there is only so much you can stretch the meaning of
> "at hand." The Church Fathers took the challenge and began a serious
> effort to interpret away those passages -- an effort continued by
> today's apologists. The end result of all this is that people began
> to set their eyes off heaven and set them on earth, hence the 10000
> DOW.
>
> Faced with this there are only three choices: (a) Accept that Jesus
> was wrong, (b) Insist on Jesus being right and find new meanings for
> the "kingdom of God"; and (c) sweep the whole matter under the carpet.
> Fundamentalist choose (b), most Christians choose (c).
>
> But... can the Christian just reject parts of the bible and keep
> others? Reject the bad, or wrong, parts and keep the moral, or
> right, parts? To do this, one must have a nonbiblical source of
> morality which determines what to pick and what to reject. Perhaps
> one has a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. Call it moral
> intuition, or whatever. One may even have some abstract,
> philosophical theory of ethics which allows one to decide which
> biblical precepts are morally acceptable. A person who uses these
> sources as guides to morality apparently thinks that his or her own
> gut feeling or moral system is a better guide to morality than the
> bible and thus would have to admit that the bible is an adequate
> source for morality and conduct.
>
>
>
>
> > But it says not to trust in them, but to trust in God.
> > For example, if a person has a lot of stock, and there is a stock
> market
> > crash, the Lord will see to it that he has what he needs, if they
> trust him.
>
> Great Depression?
>
>
>
> > If God meant that all should give
> > away all their money, then no one would have survived to preach the
> > gospel.
>
> Good point. Talk to the boss about it. HE won't change his tune.
>
>
>
> > The ground rule is, though that a person should not trust in his
> riches,
> > but in God.
>
> Another cop-out.
>
> What on earth does that mean? Trust his riches? Such a fuzzy
> concept.
>
> Jesus was very clear, give away what you have. I don't think it is
> good advice, but it is clear.
>
> I know it is a problem and seemingly one way out of it is to put words
> in Jesus mouth or look for other more promising passages and concepts
> like "trusting in riches," but it won't do. Please re-read the
> verses I quoted. They are clear an unambiguous, there is not
> "trusting in riches" about it. Sorry.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Both the poor and the rich can be Christians,
> > and be so effectively. It depends upon what God wants for them.
>
> Are you correcting Jesus? Hope not.
>
>
>
> > I've never heard Benny Hinn say that he healed someone. He
> > usually says that God healed them, not he himself.
>
> You are right. A distinction without difference. He, not God,
> pockets the money. And he is a very RICH MAN.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
RA95
|
| The thing that is fascinating to me is : Everybody who wants to bash
the church
Nobody was doing gratuitous "bashing", real criticisms were being
raised about real issues.
| tries to base his arguments on the middle ages (like the flat earth).
The crticisms spanned from the period as soon as the church got
power, with attendant persecutions of heretics and other religions, and
the closing of some of
the philisophical academies etc in Athens, to the period of an example
cited in a webpage re. innoculations to combat an epidemic. I don't
think there was any intentional focusing on the medieval period.
| Why has nobody in this thread mentioned that the worst points of
| doctrine happened within the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" ?
| Like the "Virginal Conception" in 1854 or the "Infallibility of the
| pope" in 1870 ? Or the (in)famous "Syllabum Errorum" of Pius IX.
(also around 1870)?
| Is it too painful to recognize that the worst doctrines of the "Holy
| Seat" happened just a century ago ?
"The Enlightenment" was 18th century, not the 1800's.
I think common sense indicates that Immaculate Conception and papa's
infallibilty is more along
the lines of comedic religious foolishness than consequential things
like closing learning centers; creating a
culture that resulted in coersion, persecution, torture and death of
many for being "witches", jews, or voicing science/philosophy that
weren't in tune with christian dogmas; and mounting destructive
crusades.
RA
tiglath
> Hmmmmmm.
>
> José Suriol's volatile, anarchistic, anti-clerical, Latin temper has
> indeed boiled over ---- again.
>
> KKK is on the rampage looking for a cross to burn on someone's lawn.
>
> Of course his polemic, infra, is not defined by the Cozy Clique as an
> _ad hominem_ personal attack.
Please note, Mr. Hines, that whatever insults (descriptions rather) I
include in my posts are IN ADDITION to arguments dealing with the issue at
hand, the bible as moral code, not INSTEAD of them, as is your habit Mr.
Hines. This post is clear proof of it, if any were needed.
You have not told us yet, of course, what makes the bible an adequate moral
code for modern living. I doubt you know.
Have a nice day
Tiglath
RA95
| Yes - the accused wife gets to drink a solution of the rotted offal
scraped
| from the sacrificial floor - if she gets dysentry and dies or gets
sick, it
| shows she is guilty. A merciful and loving god at work.
I think it's obvious that yahweh needs to attend some sensitivity
seminars.
RA
|
tiglath
> Has Hines ever posted anything of value? Merely snide comments, followed
by
> his ostentatious and pretentious sig. One of our resident loonies.
>
Mr. Hines has the Gift of the Gaffe. A thoroughly enjoyable trait made
extra special by the pompous and ceremonious way he frames his howlers and
reacts to them. His chin up adds extra laughs when he falls in the manhole
and... the wait is never long.
tiglath
> You find what you think are
> inconsistancies in the Bible, but I
> find that when I study it the more, any
> seeming conflict melts away with the
> explanations of other verses.
Please explain the failed prophecy of Ezekiel concerning the destruction of
Tyre.
"... I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon,
king of kings... I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for the
spreading of nets; you shall never be rebuilt; for I the LORD have spoken,
says the Lord GOD" (Eze: 26:7-14)
You can pick up the phone and book a vacation in Tyre. It is a thriving
Mediterranean resort town. I've been there and the seafood is exquisite --
it is no bare rock.
I'd love to see you try to "melt away" this conflict.
> However, I will grant you that it says that to some, it will be a rock of
> offense, but to others, it will be the words of life. So, you are right in
that
> *to some* it will appear to have conflicts. It does not to me.
There is no "appear" about it. Stop misleading us.
Please explain how an all-merciful God can sends two bears to rip apart
forty-two children for mocking the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 2. 23-24)
Jehova himself was fond of directly exterminating large numbers of people,
usually through pestilence or famine, and often for rather unusual offenses.
In one instance, he is reported to have killed 70,000 men because David took
a census of Israel (2 Samuel 24)
Want more?
How do these "appear" to be in conflict? Can't you read? Or is there a
crucifix in front of your eyes obstructing the view?
> I don't think that he endorsed poverty.
Then you have not read the New Testament. I did give you the relevant
passages, which you ignored. You are obviously not open to persuasion and
it is your WILL I am dealing with, not your REASON.
> No, I believe the Bible does tell what Jesus had to say.
Your believing so doesn't make it so.
> Fragments
> of the New Testament books have been found, dating it to the first
> century A.D. The whole N.T. was written within the first century. That
> is close enough to tell what a man has said.
You overlook the big problems with the NT. We don't know who wrote the
gospels. They are translations by people whose proficiency is unknown.
Their stories often conflict, and from a historical point of view, the
killer: they remain accounts uncorroborated by independent sources. Any
self-respecting historian would accord a sole source like that very low
reliability. You, naturally, apply a different standard. Your desire that
it be true makes it true. But faith is a poor substitute for
historiography.
> People often say that the Bible should not be
> used to verify itself, but that is not right, because the Bible is many
> books,
The Gospels of the New Testament feed on each other, they don't corroborate
each other. Heard of Markan Fatigue?
The Old Testament is even worse.
The Bible relates events older than 800 B.C., and gets
most of them wrong.
The sources, both Egyptian and West Asian make no references to
Israel, its congeners, or Biblical associates prior to the twelfth
century B.C.; and beyond that point for four centuries a mere half
dozen allusions can be elicited. The dearth of citations is also
paralleled on the Biblical side by a similar absence of any specific
reference betraying a knowledge of Egypt or the Levant during the
second millenium B.C. There is no mention of an Egyptian empire
encompassing the eastern Mediterranean, no marching Egyptian armies
bent on punitive campaigns, no countermarching Hittite forces, no
resident governors, and no Egyptianized kinglets ruling Canaanite
cities. On the latest and most disastrous migration of the second
millenium, that of the Sea Peoples, the Haxateuch knows nothing:
Genesis and Exodus find the Philistines already settled in the land at
the time of Abraham. There are many errors and omissions, so that we
cannot help to conclude that Biblical writers of the seventh to sixth
centuries B.C. lacked precise knowledge of Egypt as recent as a few
generations before their own time.
How can we then believe anything they tell us about Abraham, who lived,
allegedly, some 1,500 years before their time?
> I am speaking straight arrow to you, but I think that you are living
> on another plane and you think that I am the odd one. : )
With this deep comment Susanne averts her eyes from all the quotations from
the Bible which so inconveniently contradict her statements. I am not
surprised -- standard Christian modus operandi: ignore all counter-evidence,
change the subject, and don't let anyone see you sweat.
Good luck.
Paul J. Gans
Strange. I am *agreeing* with you. My second sentence
is based on what you wrote:
"Everybody who wants to bash the church tries to base his arguments
on the middle ages (like the flat earth)."
to which "Perhaps it comes from not really knowing the subject?"
seems to be a reasonable response.
[rest deleted]
---- Paul J. Gans
Sigen 3
wrote[...]
+-----------------------+
| PLEASE I
I DO NOT FEED |
| THE TROLLS. |
| THANK YOU. |
| -- The Management |
+-----------------------+
| |
| | O
o | | |
__\|/___=\| |/=_\|/____
Sigen
"Everything you wish for me, I wish twice as much for you."
Bryn says this is a Wicca defense spell... I just like what it says.
patrick burke
>
> "patrick burke" <pbur...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:eHpE6.53634$C55.4...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> >
> > "tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:9bt035$bor$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> []
> > >
> > > "As you love yourself" is also a useless exaggeration. If I REALLY
had
> to
> > > treat my neighbor as good as I treat myself then he would be entitled
to
> > > have my wife, my car, and all the other things I do and get out of
> > > self-love. Pretty useless commandment, I'd say.
> >
> > It's poetic not literal.
>
> Hang on, is this an ethical precept or a poem?
It is an ethical precept presented poetically. Just as the Declaration
of Independence are political precepts presented poetically
>How can you have an ethical
> base where the words do not mean what they say?
You are in all honesty asserting that because the style is poetic it is
UNINTELLIGIBLE? I am trying to be polite but this is just plain foolish. Man
has been using poetic speech since we have examples of language, and almost
certainly before that, we have understood it all.
>Is this why so many
> Christians are so sinful - there are no set standards, just poetry to
enjoy?
More foolishness. Real messages, (and stories, political views,
philosophical precepts, history, etc.) have all at one time or another been
cast in flowery, formal and artistic patterns of speech. It has never been a
problem. trying to make it one now is just a cheap tactic.
>
> NL
>
>
RA95
|
| More foolishness. Real messages, (and stories, political views,
| philosophical precepts, history, etc.) have all at one time or another
been
| cast in flowery, formal and artistic patterns of speech. It has never
been a
| problem. trying to make it one now is just a cheap tactic.
No, it's not foolishness to say that supreme rules of behavior should be
clear. In the US, in recent histroy there has been a great deal of
twisting "thou shalt not kill" into a condmenation of people who served
their country, by people who wouldn't (and to make it worse, against a
poltical/economic ideology that was generally atheistic). Rules that
can't be clearly understood are not rules at all, just levers of
manipulation.
RA