Christianity vs. Doctor Who mythology
Yug...@webtv.net
Interference book 2, to be precise. Suddenly, out of the chaos of the
overlooked outside world....
"Gallifrey?"
It was a baritone voice, not necessarily trying to grab my attention.
The voice seemed to be speaking for its own pleasure, it's own
livelihood. Was it a memory... forcing the voice to express a long,
forgotten childhood experience with the good Doctor? Was it a cry of
pain, lashing out beneath the shackles of religious conviction?
"Pardon?"
"Gallifrey. That's the place the Doctor's from, right?"
Shaking off my dreamworld of reading, I reply. "Uh, yeah. Are you a
fan?"
"Oh, I used to be, but I've had to put all that behind me now." We step
off the escalator and move to the side, watching the other zombie
bankers sluff by.
"Ok. If you're certain. But as the Organizer for the TDWVS, I'd like
to invite you to a meeting at the library?"
"Nah." He said. "Wife won't let me."
"How come?" I ask.
"Oh. Jesus and all that."
My eyes would be rolling were it not for my distinct politeness.
"Jesus? You mean christianity, right?"
"Yeah."
"I have a question. What exactly does your Christian philosophy
consider 'non-christian' about Doctor Who?"
"Oh, the whole 'Aliens creating the Human Race' thing. It's not
biblical." I'm thinking here, why why why do people like this exist,
but then I realize that I'm being judgmental, too, so I stop thinking
that. At least on a conscious level. If the TARDIS was broadcasting
my chattering thoughts, it'd make Davros blush.
OK, so my question is:
How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
To each their own, I suppose.
David Brider
<20525-38...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
>are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
>I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
Well, this was explored about six months ago..!
But, to answer your questions: I'm a Christian but I'm also a Doctor Who
fan - well, I've been a Doctor Who fan for a very long time but a Christian
for slightly less than four years. Frankly, I don't bother too much about
the fact that elements of the programme are "non-Biblical" - after all, DW's
fiction, so it's not as if it's a serious worldview challenging my faith!
If anything, there are certain aspects of DW which seem to reinforce a
vaguely Christian worldview - mainly the idea of good triumphing over evil
and the Doctor, like Jesus, being very much a champion of the underdogs,
society's outcasts, and also the idea of spiritual/physical
rebirth/regeneration. (Although I suppose that could be said of a great
many faiths.)
Just my two penn'orth. All IMHO, of course.
David.
--
This week I have been mostly re-reading: "Cold Fusion" by Lance Parkin.
http://www.dwjbrider.freeserve.co.uk/homepage.htm
Elflore
an extent-we follow different paths to the same place). I've never really
noticed much of a conflict between Christianity and Doctor Who. I'm not sure
what the mention of "aliens creating humans" comes from, but I don't take the
Bible (or Who!) too literally anyway.
Rambling on,
John Clifford
Alan S. Wales
>How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
>are non-biblical?
I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16 years. Certain
elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
fiction and I don't know of any historical stories that went back past 90 AD or
so, so it certainly isn't a Biblical show.
I think the real question is, "Are there elements of Dr. Who that contradict
Biblical theology?" or perhaps, "Is there anything in Dr. Who that contradicts
your Christian beliefs?"
Not really. The show is fiction. It's completely made up stuff. But if there
were to be something that contradicts Christianity it would be the assumption
in Dr. Who that man evolved from lower animals. I think "the whole 'Aliens
creating the Human Race' thing" refers to City of Death, where Scaroth's
spaceship provided the spark needed to alter the amino acids in the primordial
soup thus leading to evolution and homo sapiens. This would be the one thing
for me, in fact, the only mention in any episode of Who that would be slightly
offensive, if I didn't tell myself "it's only a TV show".
Another recurring event in Dr. Who that has bothered me is the human sacrifice
scenes. There seems to be a lot of these in the history of the show. These
usually feature a bunch of drones intoning some mumbo jumbo as they march the
sacrifice to the altar. But I suppose this is gruesome to everyone, so I don't
see much conflict between Dr. Who and Christianity.
What's with Christians dropping dead left and right? We had teens in Columbine
HS declaring their beliefs and being gunned down, the madman that went into a
Baptist church and began shooting people, and last week Payne Stewart died in a
freak plane accident.
"Quantum Physics: The dreams stuff is made of."
Organon
I like it, and I've been an old-fashioned Presbyterian all my life,
even longer than I've been a Doctor Who fan.
I usually don't think much about the ethical implications of Doctor Who
- it is fiction, after all, and it has never made a serious case for
being reality. When I do think about it, I do appreciate how much more
open that the Doctor Who TV series was about life then Star Trek
(particularly TNG) was. In TNG, there was no dispute. Evolution reigned
supreme, and the idea that the characters might possibly have it wrong
was not even considered. I always appreciated the fact that, when the
subject of man's origins came up, Doctor Who seemed much more up in the
air and respectful of ideas. He's still considering.
Made Ghostlight, many of the NAs, and a few of the MAs seem like rather
rude intrusions into my idea of Doctor Who as a show with an open mind.
I hate coming away from a Doctor Who story thinking that I've been
lectured to by Captain Picard.
At those points I have to remind myself again - this is fiction. Don't
take it seriously.
Benjamin F. Elliott
hmm, almost Reformation Day again, isn't it?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Azaxyr
>I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16 years. Certain
>elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
>fiction ...
So is the bible - what's your point?
"All these worlds....
...Will make excellent sites for our garbage dumps."
Bokman7757
spice for a story, and after all, there've been so many episodes about this
that the theories practically cancel each other out- is it the Jagaroth, or the
Daemons, or the Fendahl... you get the idea.
Bokman7757
HS declaring their beliefs and being gunned down >>
I have a feeling the girl that was referred to would have been shot either way.
The police have concluded that the gunmen weren't targeting anyone in
particular. Christians, Jews, whites, blacks- they were all under fire.
Nathan Skreslet
> OK, so my question is:
>
> are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
> I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
I've been Christian all my life and my Dad is a pastor, but our whole
familly have been Doctor Who fans for a very long time. It's only a TV show
after all, we know that the Jagaroth never existed and that they didn't
cause life to begin on Earth so why make a big deal about it? It's simply an
element of a very good piece of speculative fiction. I might take exception
if they had a story where they went back to biblical times and said that
Jesus was really an alien or something, but as they haven't I see no problem
with being both Christian and a Doctor Who fan.
Mags
Alan S. Wales wrote in message
<19991030154000...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>> Yug...@webtv.net asked:
>
>>How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>>you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
>>are non-biblical?
>Another recurring event in Dr. Who that has bothered me is the human
sacrifice
>scenes. There seems to be a lot of these in the history of the show. These
>usually feature a bunch of drones intoning some mumbo jumbo as they march
the
>sacrifice to the altar. But I suppose this is gruesome to everyone, so I
don't
>see much conflict between Dr. Who and Christianity.
Some of us non-christians can find the idea that any non-christian religious
system must practice blood sacrifice a bit offensive too, FWIW.
Mags
--
"I'm a sinner, I'm a saint,
I do *not* feel ashamed."
Archive With No Name:
http://www.archivewivnoname.free-online.co.uk
Moosifer Jones' Lair:
http://www.members.tripod.com/Moosifer_Jones
David Johnston
> What's with Christians dropping dead left and right? We had teens in Columbine
> HS declaring their beliefs and being gunned down,
No you didn't. You had _one_ count her, _one_ teenager who "declared her beliefs"
and was gunned down. If she'd said she didn't believe in God, she still would have
been gunned down.
the madman that went into a
> Baptist church and began shooting people, and last week Payne Stewart died in a
> freak plane accident.
I fail to see the connection. Christianity isn't that rare a faith.
Ken McAuliffe
>OK, so my question is:
>
>How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
>are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
>I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
>
>To each their own, I suppose.
I've been a Christian all my life, and a fan for about ten
years, although I've discovered and accepted that there isn't too
much about Doctor Who that *is* biblical in the sense of it going out
of its way to agree with Christian theology. There is much about the
Doctor that, as a Christian, I've admired (his striving for justice,
his compassion, his pursuit of truth), but I've taken it as given that
because the Doctor is an alien, he will probably adhere to different
belief systems than human beings. It has been interesting, though, to
see the occasional fanfic where the Doctor encounters Christ, and/or
early Christians.
Elflore
>creating the Human Race' thing" refers to City of Death, where Scaroth's
>spaceship provided the spark needed to alter the amino acids in the
>primordial
>soup thus leading to evolution and homo sapiens. This would be the one thing
>for me, in fact, the only mention in any episode of Who that would be
>slightly
Speaking as a Christian myself...who's to say God didn't use Scaroth's ship to
set His great plan in motion? Seriously.
Well, almost.
John Clifford
Dave Stone
> Another recurring event in Dr. Who that has bothered me is the human sacrifice
> scenes. There seems to be a lot of these in the history of the show. These
> usually feature a bunch of drones intoning some mumbo jumbo as they march the
> sacrifice to the altar. But I suppose this is gruesome to everyone, so I don't
> see much conflict between Dr. Who and Christianity.
Oh, I'm gonna have a dilly of one of these. I'll be getting to it next
week - on my usual 'What, you mean the delivery date was *last* week?'
basis ...
--
Take care. Have fun. Bring your own banjo.
http://www.sgloomi.demon.co.uk
Andrew
<Yug...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20525-38...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >
> How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
> you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
> are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
> I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
Christian family. Baptised (I'm a Baptist) at 21. Fully paid up member of
church, as it were.
Doctor Who family. Became a fan at 14. Fully paid up member of fandom.
2 of my friends who are also Who fans, are both Christians too.
Conflict - none.
In terms of the 'aliens created the universe'; 'big ship caused creation of
universe'; etc - doesn't matter. As everyone who has replied to this seems
to have pointed out - Doctor Who is fiction - so it doesn't matter what it
says about evolution; creation of the universe etc etc.
Some of the NAs and MAs tread on thin ice, but on the whole I tend to
approach everything with an open mind and if an author does include
something which I find a little grating, I have a quick think and then
forget about, caught up in enjoying the fiction of the story.
I have got somewhere a fan fiction called 'The Burden Bearer' where the
Doctor and Benny listen to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. It's very nice and -
IMO - implies that Jesus was definitely a heavenly being who could speak,
not only to humans but all races (the Doctor hears him speak in High
Gallifreyan, whilst the humans are, obvioulsy, hearing him in Aramaic).
I don't worry about it too much. (Although, is it true that Ian Briggs
referred to Christianity as the 2000 year old lie, in the novelisation of
The Curse of Fenric? I think that's a little bit too far, but I'm not going
to be ceremoniously burning my copy if it's true).
Andrew
******************
52 Festive Road
Jon Elledge
but please don't take offence if I've credited this wrong) that "all who is
gay"??
Jon Elledge
Andrew wrote in message <7vhlji$vjo$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Organon
<JR...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Okay, new question : how does the assertion (Cornell, Jones et al,
> I think,
> but please don't take offence if I've credited this wrong) that
> "all who is
> gay"??
I think the actual quote is "all interesting who fans are gay", or
something like that. It was something to do with the fans.
The only problem is that I'm not certain if they think that's true
*now*, or when they first said it. My first exposure to Who fandom was
in 96, so I can't give an opinion about when they first got their idea.
If they mean today, then I must point them in the direction of Nathan
Skreslet and his Doctor Who covers, followed by a link to Kate Orman's
web page (dunno if her husband Jon has written anything there yet),
with a side trip to Mark Phippen and family, a nice wave to Karen
Baldwin, and who knows how many other Who people I've become aware of
here.
I'm not gay either, but I don't know if I count as interesting or not.
Benjamin F. Elliott
Nyctolops
wrote:
>Okay, new question : how does the assertion (Cornell, Jones et al, I think,
>but please don't take offence if I've credited this wrong) that "all who is
>gay"??
Paul Cornell did say in License Denied that all "interesting" Doctor
Who fans are gay. I found that somewhat offensive at first, as I find
many straight fans on here very interesting. I then just decided to
chalk it up as Paul's opinion, or maybe he has a different definition
of "interesting" than I do, or maybe he was trolling for attention.
Nyctolops
Quotefile nominations to radwqu...@geocities.com
orinoco
Nyctolops wrote in message ...
>
>Paul Cornell did say in License Denied that all "interesting" Doctor
>Who fans are gay. I found that somewhat offensive at first, as I find
>many straight fans on here very interesting. I then just decided to
>chalk it up as Paul's opinion, or maybe he has a different definition
>of "interesting" than I do, or maybe he was trolling for attention.
>
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was a tad offended by that line. I'm sure
that all gay who fans are interesting, but must say I find *all* who fans
interesting atm as I am (relatively) new to organised fandom.
Orinoco, wombling free
I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid
Ken McAuliffe
<nyct...@concentric.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:33:07 -0000, "Jon Elledge" <JR...@cam.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Okay, new question : how does the assertion (Cornell, Jones et al, I think,
>>but please don't take offence if I've credited this wrong) that "all who is
>>gay"??
>
>Paul Cornell did say in License Denied that all "interesting" Doctor
>Who fans are gay. I found that somewhat offensive at first, as I find
>many straight fans on here very interesting. I then just decided to
>chalk it up as Paul's opinion, or maybe he has a different definition
>of "interesting" than I do, or maybe he was trolling for attention.
It's stupid whoever said it.
Mags
Joxer
orinoco <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote in message
news:7vi8dg$gj0$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Nyctolops wrote in message ...
>
> >
> >Who fans are gay. I found that somewhat offensive at first, as I find
> >many straight fans on here very interesting. I then just decided to
> >chalk it up as Paul's opinion, or maybe he has a different definition
> >of "interesting" than I do, or maybe he was trolling for attention.
> >
sure
> that all gay who fans are interesting, but must say I find *all* who fans
> interesting atm as I am (relatively) new to organised fandom.
I was fairly offended by it at the time, and wrote an article in my LG
newsletter
saying so. I then came to retype it six months later for our fanzine, and
compared
what Paul had said to another article I had written which basically told the
old-school
Pertwee fans that their day was done and we Williams / McCoy - lovers were
the new
Who (I think in response to some negative comments on Sky Pirates! in the
LG). I was
struck by the similarity, and decided to rewrite the article. I still
disagreed with Paul
(more so on his assumption that any LG which didn't agree with this was
basically
McCarthyite in its homophobia), but had to find myself guilty of a very
similar crime.
(My final article is reproduced on our website at
http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/scullyst/25/ldenied.html
if anyone is kind enough to want to read it)
--
Colin B.
A penguin a day keeps the - ah.
Organon
<JR...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> My apologies, I misquoted. (Haven't done the fan thing for a
> couple of
> years, kind of getting sucked back in now...) The actual quote was
> "All
> interesting fans are gay", Licence Denied, 1997. This blatently
> untrue, if
> you ask me, since sexuality probably has very little to do with how
> interesting a person is.
> This a different question, admittedly, but I was just wondering :
> a lot of
> Who fans are gay (see "Queer as Folk", which both Matt Jones and
> Russell T.
> Davies were involved in, and which was fantastic, just for the
> record) -
> does this bother any devout christians? (Being neither gay nor
> homophobic,
> nor come to that a christian, I can't really decide for myself).
> Jon
Queer as Folk is a special case, surely. Doctor Who fandom mixed with
(reportedly) a lot of sexual acts on the television for anyone watching
to see. What Hugh Heffner probably wants any kind of show to be like.
As a devout Christian, I would think the objection would be that they
were showing sexual behavior on screen, not that they were chatting
about whether K9 or Kamelion was a better assistant for the Doctor half
an hour earlier in the evening. Sex is a private, special, sacred act,
that deserves better than to be cheapened into a television stunt,
between either two men, two women, a man and a woman, or some other
variation. Obviously it's worse if they're not married, but that is not
a subject matter I would consider appropriate for television,
regardless of marital or stable status of the people involved in the
action. I can think of at least 2 of the final 10 DS9 episodes which
rather upset me on that score, and those were definitely depicting
heterosexual behavior.
If, as I understood from reading here, a fair amount of Queer as Folk
involves witnessing sexual situations in progress, then I don't plan to
watch it when it comes on US TV, just as I avoid Sex And The City. If
I'm mistaken, and it just involves the lives of people who happen to be
homosexual and happen to like Doctor Who, then I might try the first
episode when/if it ever shows up here and see if I like it. It would
then be a matter of if it was entertaining or not.
Homosexual Doctor Who fans making shows which homage Doctor Who don't
bother me. Turning onto a TV show and coming across a sex act bothers
me, no matter who's responsible.
If the US HBO is the network that helps produce a future series of
Doctor Who, remind me to be very worried.
multim...@my-deja.com
My view?
Me: How do we know the Bible is an accurate historical document?
Christian: Because it's the word of God.
Me: But how do we know God even exists?
Christian: er... because the Bible says so.
There's one for the Faction Paradox.
P.S. And The Face of Evil is surely the most anti-Christian manifesto
Who has ever produced... either that or a poke at Tom's alledged
monomania, anyway.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steven Kitson
> How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
> you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
> are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
> I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
The issue of my Christianity is... complicated at the moment, but suffice
it to say that, yes, I do find certain elements of the program conflict
with Cristian teaching.
Of course they do.
It's fiction. It's not real. It's a story.
Next question?
--
God's in his heaven, all's right with the world
Steven Kitson
> powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales) writes:
> >I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16 years. Certain
> >elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
> >fiction ...
> So is the bible - what's your point?
I love the smell of trolls in the morning...
Steven Kitson
> Okay, new question : how does the assertion (Cornell, Jones et al, I think,
> but please don't take offence if I've credited this wrong) that "all who is
> gay"??
What? Explain, please? 'All Who fans are gay'? No. 'All Who writers are
gay'? I don't believe so. 'All Who actors are gay'? Ditto. 'All Doctor Who
stories espouse homosexual values'? Not that I've seen. Paul McGann, in
particular, didn't seem too interested in Chang Lee...
Jon Elledge
Steven Kitson wrote in message <7ving6$7j7$5...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
My apologies, I misquoted. (Haven't done the fan thing for a couple of
Bokman7757
an hour earlier in the evening. Sex is a private, special, sacred act,
that deserves better than to be cheapened into a television stunt, >>
Portrayal of sexuality isn't automatically a "stunt." Sometimes the story does
warrant it- particularly if you're dealing with matters of human sexuality,
which certainly have been and deserve to be explored by all art forms.
Nyctolops
<moosife...@halliday47YADDA.freeserve.YADDA.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ken McAuliffe wrote in message <381ca763...@netnews.voicenet.com>...
>>On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:56:11 -0700, Nyctolops
>><nyct...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:33:07 -0000, "Jon Elledge" <JR...@cam.ac.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Okay, new question : how does the assertion (Cornell, Jones et al, I
>think,
>>>>but please don't take offence if I've credited this wrong) that "all who
>is
>>>>gay"??
>>>
>>>Paul Cornell did say in License Denied that all "interesting" Doctor
>>>Who fans are gay. I found that somewhat offensive at first, as I find
>>>many straight fans on here very interesting. I then just decided to
>>>chalk it up as Paul's opinion, or maybe he has a different definition
>>>of "interesting" than I do, or maybe he was trolling for attention.
>>
>>It's stupid whoever said it.
>
>No, it's foolish, not stupid.
Very good distinction, Mags. I think you got that exactly right.
Keith Hood 4652
>Yug...@webtv.net wrote in message
><20525-38...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>
>>How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>>are non-biblical?
<snip>
>and the Doctor, like Jesus, being very much a champion of the underdogs,
>society's outcasts...(snip)
>
>
So you never bothered reading the bible then?
Keith
---
--
Currently waiting for National Lottery funds to develop a new sig
If Ericsson's opinions ever coincided with mine I'd probably die of shock
Please do not read the rest of this rubbish. It's only there as padding because
my newsreader now refuses to post anything with less new content than original.
In most cases this would be enough but extreme circumstances may require even
more rubbish being inserted below. Please disregard that also.
Keith Hood 4652
>> Yug...@webtv.net asked:
>
>>How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>>you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
>>are non-biblical?
>
>elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
>so, so it certainly isn't a Biblical show.
>
As I recall Myth Makers was way BC
Romans was quite a bit earlier than 90 AD
Some parts of City of Death were positively primeval
Keith
:-)
Keith Hood 4652
>On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:17:21 -0500 (CDT), Yug...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>
>>OK, so my question is:
>>
>>you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
>>I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
>>
>
> I've been a Christian all my life, and a fan for about ten
>years, although I've discovered and accepted that there isn't too
>much about Doctor Who that *is* biblical in the sense of it going out
>of its way to agree with Christian theology. There is much about the
>Doctor that, as a Christian, I've admired (his striving for justice,
>his compassion, his pursuit of truth),
So how come you're still a Christian? None of these is inherent
in Christianity
Keith
---
--
Currently waiting for National Lottery funds to develop a new sig
If Ericsson's opinions ever coincided with mine I'd probably die of shock
Please do not read the rest of this rubbish. It's only there as padding because
Peter Wilton
>I was obsessively reading on the escalator at work, as usual.
>Interference book 2, to be precise. Suddenly, out of the chaos of the
>overlooked outside world....
>
>"Gallifrey?"
I suppose if it's Christian Doctor Who, the Doctor would have to come
from Cana of Gallifrey...
--
Peter Wilton
The Gregorian Association Web Page:
http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/
Steven Kitson
> In article 1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk, "David Brider" <da...@dwjbrider.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >Yug...@webtv.net wrote in message
> ><20525-38...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> >>you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
> >>are non-biblical?
> >and the Doctor, like Jesus, being very much a champion of the underdogs,
> >society's outcasts...(snip)
> >
> So you never bothered reading the bible then?
Um? The people Jesus hung around with were most definetely outcasts (tax
collecters, for Heaven's sake!).
Steven Kitson
> In article 619...@netnews.voicenet.com, km...@voicenet.com (Ken McAuliffe) writes:
> > I've been a Christian all my life, and a fan for about ten
> >years, although I've discovered and accepted that there isn't too
> >much about Doctor Who that *is* biblical in the sense of it going out
> >of its way to agree with Christian theology. There is much about the
> >Doctor that, as a Christian, I've admired (his striving for justice,
> >his compassion, his pursuit of truth),
> So how come you're still a Christian? None of these is inherent
> in Christianity
Are you deliberately trolling? Firstly, both compassion and justice are
big themes in Christianity; secondly, he never said that he was a
Christian because of those things, but that they were things in
Christianity that happened to be expressed in 'Dcotor Who'. Presumably the
reason he's a Christian is that he believes in the Christian God and the
Christian interpretation of the life of Jesus.
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
> consider 'non-christian' about Doctor Who?"
>
> "Oh, the whole 'Aliens creating the Human Race' thing. It's not
> biblical."
Someone remind me which story this was in...?
> How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
> you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
> are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
> I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
I have no conflict there, being a Christian and a Doctor Who fan. I also
have no problem with the Big Bang theory, Evolution, Quantum Physics (other
than actually understanding it of course) or any of the usual bug-bears,
before anyone asks.
Ozzy
Snarky
Mags wrote...
>Alan S. Wales wrote...
><snip>
>>Another recurring event in Dr. Who that has bothered me is the human
>sacrifice
>>scenes. There seems to be a lot of these in the history of the show. These
>>usually feature a bunch of drones intoning some mumbo jumbo as they march
>the
>>sacrifice to the altar. But I suppose this is gruesome to everyone, so I
>don't
>>see much conflict between Dr. Who and Christianity.
>Some of us non-christians can find the idea that any non-christian
religious
>system must practice blood sacrifice a bit offensive too, FWIW.
Hear, hear! Personally, I've always found Xians who went on about the
inhumanity
of religions that did not, at least, stem from
or lead directly to Xianity more than a little tedious, since the number of
religions
that actually practiced human sacrifice or cannibalism
is vanishingly small, and the list includes Xianity, at least symbolically,
and quite a number of
other, rather more horrifying, hobbies for that one could also be listed,
but I wish to go to bed soon -- nearly 5 am here...
Snarky, wild and queer polytheist/agnostic (some days I believe in many
gods, some days
I think there may be none -- I don't accept the notion of just one, for me
it's totally against the odds)
Snarky
Keith Hood 4652 wrote
>Alan S. Wales writes:
>>I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16 years. Certain
>>elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
>>fiction and I don't know of any historical stories that went back past 90
AD or
>>so, so it certainly isn't a Biblical show.
>As I recall Myth Makers was way BC
>Romans was quite a bit earlier than 90 AD
>Some parts of City of Death were positively primeval
And let's not even discuss Time-Flight.....;o>
Snarky, wild and queer (who, the first time he saw it, did *not*
peg Kalid as The Master<8-()
Keith Hood 4652
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>> >Yug...@webtv.net wrote in message
>> ><20525-38...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>> >>are non-biblical?
>> <snip>
>> >and the Doctor, like Jesus, being very much a champion of the underdogs,
>> >society's outcasts...(snip)
>> >
>> So you never bothered reading the bible then?
>
>Um? The people Jesus hung around with were most definetely outcasts (tax
>collecters, for Heaven's sake!).
>
However it can hardly be said that he championed the underdogs AIW.
He never condemned slavery, for example
Snarky
Organon wrote in message
>Jon Elledge wrote:
>> Okay, new question : how does the assertion (Cornell, Jones et al,
>> I think,
>> but please don't take offence if I've credited this wrong) that
>> "all who is
>> gay"??
"How does the assertion..." what?
>I think the actual quote is "all interesting who fans are gay", or
>something like that. It was something to do with the fans.
It refers mainly to Tom Baker fans, a great many of whom do
seem to be gay -- to wit, Adam Richards, I believe (on the fan part, that
is --
he's said as much about the other) and moi -- tho' I don't think
it refers to all of them. Possibly most....
>I'm not gay either, but I don't know if I count as interesting or not.
You have yet to prove yourself boring as far as I can tell;^>
Snarky, wild and queer (who thought Harry Sullivan was such a lovable
goof --
but also loved "Harry Sullivan is an imbeciiile!!!)
David Brider
> powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales) writes:
>
>
>
>>I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16 years. Certain
>>elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
>
>So is the bible - what's your point?
It's official - Azzy is a C of E minister...
David.
--
This week I have been mostly re-reading: "Cold Fusion" by Lance Parkin.
http://www.dwjbrider.freeserve.co.uk/homepage.htm
Si Jerram
> However it can hardly be said that He championed the underdogs AIW.
> He never condemned slavery, for example
Not explicitly, no. But to say He never championed the
underdog because he didn't explicitly champion one particular
type on underdog doesn't follow.
--
Simon Jerram Email:si...@telos.clara.co.uk
"Your policies have failed the test of time,
'Cause you sold them down the river."
Keith Hood 4652
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>> > I've been a Christian all my life, and a fan for about ten
>> >years, although I've discovered and accepted that there isn't too
>> >much about Doctor Who that *is* biblical in the sense of it going out
>> >of its way to agree with Christian theology. There is much about the
>> >Doctor that, as a Christian, I've admired (his striving for justice,
>> >his compassion, his pursuit of truth),
>
>> So how come you're still a Christian? None of these is inherent
>> in Christianity
>
>Are you deliberately trolling?
You must be a newbie if you think that was a troll.
>Firstly, both compassion and justice are
>big themes in Christianity;
And your justification for saying that is what precisely?
Where's your proof?
Ask the victims of the Crusades if the Christians were compassionate.
Ask the Huguenots if the Catholics were compassionate.
Ask the victims of the Inquisition if their oppressors were compassionate.
etc. etc.
Is the crucifixion recorded in the gospels anything to do with justice?
(I just know somebody is going to misinterpret that.)
Where exactly does justice come into Christianity?
>secondly, he never said that he was a
>Christian because of those things, but that they were things in
>Christianity that happened to be expressed in 'Dcotor Who'.
No he didn't. Read it again. Of course, what he said and what he meant
to say are probably quite different.
>Presumably the
>reason he's a Christian is that he believes in the Christian God and the
>Christian interpretation of the life of Jesus.
>
What 'Christian God' would that be?
What 'Christian interpretation of the life of Jesus' would that be?
Organon
<da...@dwjbrider.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Azaxyr wrote in message
> <19991030155058...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
> > powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales) writes:
> >
> >>I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16
> years. Certain
> >>elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole
> show? It's
> >>fiction ...
> >
> >So is the bible - what's your point?
> It's official - Azzy is a C of E minister...
I would have pegged him as a GMU religion professor myself.
Of course, that could be because the last time I took a class on
religion, the professor "accidentally" smashed up his classroom on
opening day. It was quite violent, actually.
Benjamin F. Elliott
none of my professors have violent tendencies this semester. Well,
maybe the professor teaching Comparative Revolutions with the beard of
evil ...
Snarky
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman wrote...
><Yug...@webtv.net> wrote...
>> "I have a question. What exactly does your Christian philosophy
>> consider 'non-christian' about Doctor Who?"
>> "Oh, the whole 'Aliens creating the Human Race' thing. It's not
>> biblical."
>Someone remind me which story this was in...?
Which one are you asking about?
The Daemons
City Of Death
The Hand Of Fear
Ghost Light (debatable, really)
And in "The Silurians/The Sea Devils/Warriors Of The Deep" trilogy, an
intelligent nonhuman species predates
us by at least 65 million years or so. Really, any dedicated heresy hunter
could find lots of stuff in Who to condemn the show forever.....
Snarky, wild and queer
Keith Hood 4652
>
><Yug...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>> are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
>> I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
>
>church, as it were.
>Doctor Who family. Became a fan at 14. Fully paid up member of fandom.
>2 of my friends who are also Who fans, are both Christians too.
>Conflict - none.
>
>In terms of the 'aliens created the universe'; 'big ship caused creation of
>universe'; etc - doesn't matter. As everyone who has replied to this seems
>to have pointed out - Doctor Who is fiction - so it doesn't matter what it
>says about evolution; creation of the universe etc etc.
>
>Some of the NAs and MAs tread on thin ice, but on the whole I tend to
>approach everything with an open mind
Does that include the bible?
Keith
---
--
Currently waiting for National Lottery funds to develop a new sig
If Ericsson's opinions ever coincided with mine I'd probably die of shock
Please do not read the rest of this rubbish. It's only there as padding because
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
news:4OgT3.26844$Rx2.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> Which one are you asking about?
> The Daemons
What happened here that's "anti-Biblical"?
> City Of Death
The Jaggaroth ship sparking off evolution, I suppose? I don't have a
photographic memory but I can't recall anything in Genesis that opposes
Evolution as such (reading it as an allegorical account rather than literal
fact, of course).
> The Hand Of Fear
?
> Ghost Light (debatable, really)
Evolution again, with which I have no quarrel. After all, it's been proven
and I'd have to be mad not to accept it!
> And in "The Silurians/The Sea Devils/Warriors Of The Deep" trilogy, an
> intelligent nonhuman species predates
> us by at least 65 million years or so.
Again, no problem here.
> Really, any dedicated heresy hunter
> could find lots of stuff in Who to condemn the show forever.....
I think those kinds of people will find demons wherever they look - and I
doubt that a sci-fi TV show would be top of their "hit list".
Ozzy
Keith Hood 4652
>Yug...@webtv.net wrote:
>> How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>> you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
>> are non-biblical? I don't know why this is bothering me, but I thought
>> I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
>
>it to say that, yes, I do find certain elements of the program conflict
>with Cristian teaching.
>
>Of course they do.
>
>It's fiction. It's not real. It's a story.
>
Now what was that book I read awhile ago that was fiction, not real, a story?
Ah yes - a bible.
Steven Kitson
> In article 5...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Steven Kitson) writes:
> >Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
> >> In article 619...@netnews.voicenet.com, km...@voicenet.com (Ken McAuliffe) writes:
> >> >of its way to agree with Christian theology. There is much about the
> >> >Doctor that, as a Christian, I've admired (his striving for justice,
> >> >his compassion, his pursuit of truth),
> >> So how come you're still a Christian? None of these is inherent
> >> in Christianity
> >
> >Are you deliberately trolling?
> You must be a newbie if you think that was a troll.
I wouldn't say I was a complete newbie, having been on this group for a
few months and Usenet in gereral for a long time before that.
But it looked like a troll, in that you were deliberately posting
something inflamitory to get a reaction.
> >Firstly, both compassion and justice are
> >big themes in Christianity;
> And your justification for saying that is what precisely?
> Where's your proof?
Bible not to hand at the moment, but:
God is very specifically a God of Justice (most of the OT) and also of
love (most of Paul's letters). Jesus was very up on love - which is
described very much in terms of compassion.
> Ask the victims of the Crusades if the Christians were compassionate.
> Ask the Huguenots if the Catholics were compassionate.
> Ask the victims of the Inquisition if their oppressors were compassionate.
> etc. etc.
That has nothing to do with Christianity. The Bible can be preverted to
give a backing to the most heinous acts, just as anything else can, by
those who want to justify themselves or gain support.
> Is the crucifixion recorded in the gospels anything to do with justice?
> (I just know somebody is going to misinterpret that.)
> Where exactly does justice come into Christianity?
The crucifixion is the epitome of justice. Justice demands that sin be
punished, and the punishment is delivered on the cross to Jesus.
> >secondly, he never said that he was a
> >Christian because of those things, but that they were things in
> >Christianity that happened to be expressed in 'Dcotor Who'.
> No he didn't. Read it again. Of course, what he said and what he meant
> to say are probably quite different.
Read the quote. He says he is a Christian; then, he says 'there are
qualities in the Doctor that I, as a Christian, admire' (paraphrasing).
Nowhere does he say 'The only reason I'm a Christian is because I admire
these qualities.'
> >Presumably the
> >reason he's a Christian is that he believes in the Christian God and the
> >Christian interpretation of the life of Jesus.
> What 'Christian God' would that be?
> What 'Christian interpretation of the life of Jesus' would that be?
The ones in the Bible?
Keith Hood 4652
>> Yug...@webtv.net asked:
>
>>How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
>>you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
>>are non-biblical?
>
>elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
>so, so it certainly isn't a Biblical show.
>
>Biblical theology?" or perhaps, "Is there anything in Dr. Who that contradicts
>your Christian beliefs?"
>
I've got a better question.
"Is there anything in the bible that contradicts your Christian beliefs?"
Think carefully now.
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
news:7vk5bv$9...@newstoo.ericsson.se...
> I've got a better question.
>
> "Is there anything in the bible that contradicts your Christian beliefs?"
>
> Think carefully now.
Oh, /loads/ of things. After all, the Bible criticises itself in various
places. But then again it's really an eclectic collection of books written
over hundreds of years.
Rather similar to Doctor Who, in fact... it contradicts itself in the
details but IMHO it;s the broad strokes that matter.
Ozzy
[What am I saying? The details are /everything/ in Who!]
Keith Hood 4652
>
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote
>>>I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16 years. Certain
>>>elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
>>>fiction and I don't know of any historical stories that went back past 90
>AD or
>>>so, so it certainly isn't a Biblical show.
>
>
>
>>Romans was quite a bit earlier than 90 AD
>
>>Some parts of City of Death were positively primeval
>
>
>And let's not even discuss Time-Flight.....;o>
>
>
Keith
---
--
Currently waiting for National Lottery funds to develop a new sig
If Ericsson's opinions ever coincided with mine I'd probably die of shock
Please do not read the rest of this rubbish. It's only there as padding because
Keith Hood 4652
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>
>> However it can hardly be said that He championed the underdogs AIW.
>> He never condemned slavery, for example
>
>Not explicitly, no. But to say He never championed the
>underdog because he didn't explicitly champion one particular
>type on underdog doesn't follow.
>
>
Alan S. Wales
>Snarky <feeto...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:4OgT3.26844$Rx2.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>> Which one are you asking about?
>> The Daemons
>
>What happened here that's "anti-Biblical"?
I don't see it either. It's just kind of occultish creepy.
>> City Of Death
>
>The Jaggaroth ship sparking off evolution, I suppose? I don't have a
>photographic memory but I can't recall anything in Genesis that opposes
>Evolution as such (reading it as an allegorical account rather than literal
>fact, of course).
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." This goes against
evolution, IMHO.
>> The Hand Of Fear
>
>?
I don't see it either.
>> Ghost Light (debatable, really)
>Evolution again, with which I have no quarrel. After all, it's been proven
>and I'd have to be mad not to accept it!
I haven't seen Ghostlight, so can't comment. As far as evolution being proven,
it hasn't been in totality. Certain parts of the evolution theory can be
accepted as fact, but there are many questionable aspects to the whole overall
theory that strike me as ridiculous.
Genes serendipitously mutating into new cell structures by random acts of
radiation? HA HA HA HA. Sure, that's real believable.
>> And in "The Silurians/The Sea Devils/Warriors Of The Deep" trilogy, an
>> intelligent nonhuman species predates
>> us by at least 65 million years or so.
>
>Again, no problem here.
>
>> Really, any dedicated heresy hunter
>> could find lots of stuff in Who to condemn the show forever.....
>
>I think those kinds of people will find demons wherever they look - and I
>doubt that a sci-fi TV show would be top of their "hit list".
>
> Ozzy
>
"Quantum Physics: The dreams stuff is made of."
Emily
>>How many of you are christians but find Doctor Who enjoyable? How do
you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
are non-biblical?>>
Well, I was reared a Catholic, and Doctor Who can take some of the
credit for my decision, in my early teens, to risk hell-fire and
damnation and become an agnostic. I realised that I found it a lot
easier to believe in the Doctor's existence than Jesus's - and he was
so much more of a hero. Not to mention having a better scarf.
And, as it happens, it was Lalla Ward's husband Professor Dawkins who
turned me from agnostic to atheist - 'I'm not agnostic about the
tooth-fairy so I'm not agnostic about God.'
Mags
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman wrote in message ...
>Keith Hood 4652 <etl...@etlxdmx.ericsson.se> wrote in message
>news:7vk5bv$9...@newstoo.ericsson.se...
>> I've got a better question.
>>
>> "Is there anything in the bible that contradicts your Christian beliefs?"
>>
>> Think carefully now.
>
>Oh, /loads/ of things. After all, the Bible criticises itself in various
>places. But then again it's really an eclectic collection of books written
>over hundreds of years.
>
>Rather similar to Doctor Who, in fact... it contradicts itself in the
>details but IMHO it;s the broad strokes that matter.
Why am I suddenly wondering if the first four books of the NT were the
Interference of their time? ;-)
Mags
--
"I'm a sinner, I'm a saint,
I do *not* feel ashamed."
Archive With No Name:
http://www.archivewivnoname.free-online.co.uk
Moosifer Jones' Lair:
http://www.members.tripod.com/Moosifer_Jones
David Brunt
>Why am I suddenly wondering if the first four books of the NT
>were the Interference of their time? ;-)
As they all contradict each other, could they be counted as the first
retcons??
David
orinoco
Keith Hood 4652 wrote in message >
>Now what was that book I read awhile ago that was fiction, not real, a
story?
>
>Ah yes - a bible.
>
I'm certain that the bible is meant to be the written form of oral tradition
of true tales. Some of it is analogy, some of it is real, but its been
corrupted by being mistranslated hundreds of times (eg thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live - apparently the hebrew (or something like that anyway) for
witch is similar to the word for murderer, and the two may have been
confused), so it doesn't always appear to make sense to us rational people
who don't believe a word of it.
Orinoco, the atheist womble
I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid
orinoco
Keith Hood 4652 wrote in message
>Ask the Huguenots if the Catholics were compassionate.
>Ask the victims of the Inquisition if their oppressors were compassionate.
>etc. etc.
>
I think you are a bit out of line here. The oppresion came around because
the oppressed beleived differently. It was not the christian teachings that
caused the horrors you mention. Humans are capable of great bad on their
own, and just saying that they are doing it in the name of God doesn't mean
that their beleifs are really behind anything. Look at the churches of the
middle ages, many of whom were more interested in gathering riches than
tending the metaphorical flock...
Andrew
> In article 1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk, "Andrew" <and...@joeychandler.com>
writes:
> >
> ><Yug...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >news:20525-38...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >> >
> >> you interpret the above statement that certain elements of the program
> >> I'd explore it a little, see what happens.
> >
of
> >church, as it were.
> >Doctor Who family. Became a fan at 14. Fully paid up member of fandom.
> >2 of my friends who are also Who fans, are both Christians too.
> >Conflict - none.
> >
> >In terms of the 'aliens created the universe'; 'big ship caused creation
of
> >universe'; etc - doesn't matter. As everyone who has replied to this
seems
> >to have pointed out - Doctor Who is fiction - so it doesn't matter what
it
> >says about evolution; creation of the universe etc etc.
> >
> >Some of the NAs and MAs tread on thin ice, but on the whole I tend to
> >approach everything with an open mind
>
> Does that include the bible?
Yes, actually.
Andrew
*******************
52 Festive Road
Alan S. Wales
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote in message >
>>Now what was that book I read awhile ago that was fiction, not real, a
>story?
>>
>>Ah yes - a bible.
>>
>Do any christians find this offensive?
>
>
>I'm certain that the bible is meant to be the written form of oral tradition
>of true tales. Some of it is analogy, some of it is real, but its been
>corrupted by being mistranslated hundreds of times (eg thou shalt not suffer
>a witch to live - apparently the hebrew (or something like that anyway) for
>witch is similar to the word for murderer, and the two may have been
>confused), so it doesn't always appear to make sense to us rational people
>who don't believe a word of it.
That's the easy way out. Keep repeating vague negative summations of the Bible.
Don't actually read it though, and draw your own conclusions. Your reference to
murderer being mistranslated as witch is a prime example of intellectual
laziness.
A lot of the Bible is history, especially much of the Old Testament, the
Gospels and the book of Acts. There are many, many archeological finds
supporting the historical aspects of the Bible.
Alan S. Wales
>Mags insulted all Christians by saying:
>>Why am I suddenly wondering if the first four books of the NT
>>were the Interference of their time? ;-)
Ohh., Puh-leeze. Lawrence Miles being compared to the Apostles. Now that is
offensive to all Christians. :-)
>As they all contradict each other, could they be counted as the first
>retcons??
>
>David
The Gospels don't contradict each other. I think you mean that they don't
necessarily contain the same parables or events. But the overall theme of the
Gospels is quite clear.
Or do you want to elaborate and list just a few of the ways the Gospels
contradict themselves?
Mags
Alan S. Wales wrote in message
<19991101161122...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
>>"David Brunt" D...@btinternet.com said:
>
>
>>Mags insulted all Christians by saying:
>>>Why am I suddenly wondering if the first four books of the NT
>>>were the Interference of their time? ;-)
>
>Ohh., Puh-leeze. Lawrence Miles being compared to the Apostles. Now that is
>offensive to all Christians. :-)
oh dear. incorrect level of humour applied. must remember some people miss
jests. Even when followed with smilie.
Oh, and if I did decide to "insult all christians", I'd do it properly and
not with a passing remark.
David Brunt
>the first retcons??
>
>necessarily contain the same parables or events. But the overall theme
>of the Gospels is quite clear.
>
>Or do you want to elaborate and list just a few of the ways the Gospels
>contradict themselves?
OK.
Why doesn't John relate the events of last supper, surely an important
event? And the others indicate he was there. And his version at the cross
contradicts all the others on almost every point.
Why do the four Gospels have Jesus' last words on the cross differently in
each version??
Two gospels say he was nailed to the cross, two don't. What happened?
Matthew says Judas hanged himself, however Acts 1 says he exploded in a
field he had bought with the silver.
And so on, and so forth.
Moving back several hundred pages:-
The most amusingly contradictory part of the bible is god creating Adam and
Eve, who bore two sons. Cain killed Abel then was banished and married
someone..... Er, where did *she* come from then.......
And the interesting bit in Genesis 6: 1-4 where god's sons (plural) come
down to Earth and have sex with earthly women. They never mention that at
Sunday school.
Or the fact that the benevolant god goes around wiping out whole towns
because they're foreigners. Where's the compassion there? Check out Job.
Or the many other commandments they never mention -
Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death (I don't
think it should be a crime just saying jehova!!).
One who has sex with animals shall be put to death (actually, this is
understandable).
I have nothing against the bible, just those who take everything out of
context and ignore the discrepancies of the bible when it suits them to.
Oh, this is dull......
David
"If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?" [John 8:46]
David Brider
>
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote
>>Alan S. Wales writes:
>>>I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16 years.
Certain
>>>elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
>>>fiction and I don't know of any historical stories that went back past 90
>AD or
>>>so, so it certainly isn't a Biblical show.
>
>
>>As I recall Myth Makers was way BC
>
>>Romans was quite a bit earlier than 90 AD
>
>>Some parts of City of Death were positively primeval
>
>
>And let's not even discuss Time-Flight.....;o>
Earthshock, anyone?
David Brider
>>Some of the NAs and MAs tread on thin ice, but on the whole I tend to
>>approach everything with an open mind
>
>Does that include the bible?
The best way to approach the Bible is with a healthily open mind. I get the
impression from your posts on this subject that you're happier to approach
it with a closed mind - at any rate, closed to the possibility that it might
be true - but I wouldn't really recommend taking such an approach.
Obviously there is a need for a degree of healthy scepticism - some of the
claims made in the Bible are so outlandish (the dead raised, the sea being
walked on, the Son of God walking amongst us 2000 years ago) that to accept
anything therein *solely* on the ground that "the Bible says so" would be
intellectual suicide. But starting from first principles (such as, it is an
open possibility that the sort of deity written of in the Bible - to whit a
theistic interventionist God - *could* exist) and proceeding from there in
one's interpretation of the Bible, would lead to an acceptance of the vast
majority of it as *potentially* if not *actually* a true, historically
reliable account of events. Consider this an invitation to try it some
time.
David Brider
>I'm certain that the bible is meant to be the written form of oral
tradition
>of true tales. Some of it is analogy, some of it is real, but its been
>corrupted by being mistranslated hundreds of times (eg thou shalt not
suffer
>a witch to live - apparently the hebrew (or something like that anyway) for
>witch is similar to the word for murderer, and the two may have been
>confused), so it doesn't always appear to make sense to us rational people
>who don't believe a word of it.
And quite a bit of it doesn't make sense to rational people who *do* believe
it. I think it was Mark Twain who said that it wasn't the bits of the Bible
he didn't understand that gave him problems, but the bits he *did*
understand...
David (rational fundamentalist Methodist)
William December Starr
"David Brider" <da...@dwjbrider.freeserve.co.uk> said:
> But starting from first principles (such as, it is an open possibility
> that the sort of deity written of in the Bible - to whit a theistic
> interventionist God - *could* exist) and proceeding from there in
> one's interpretation of the Bible, would lead to an acceptance of the
> vast majority of it as *potentially* if not *actually* a true,
> historically reliable account of events. Consider this an invitation
> to try it some time.
Sure, it's *potentially* true. But then again, so is any other account
of events that anybody might choose to spin out for any reason, right?
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
etl...@etlxdmx.ericsson.se said:
>> Not explicitly, no. But to say He never championed the underdog
>> because he didn't explicitly champion one particular type on
>> underdog doesn't follow.
>
> Ok. How's about giving a list of underdogs he did champion then
Adultresses? (That "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone"
thing, I mean... they were about to stone her for adultery, right?)
William December Starr
sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
> God is very specifically a God of Justice (most of the OT)
No, he's a God of demanding that God's rules be enforced upon man.
Not the same thing at all.
[ *snip* ]
>> Is the crucifixion recorded in the gospels anything to do with
>> justice? (I just know somebody is going to misinterpret that.)
>> Where exactly does justice come into Christianity? [Keith Hood]
>
> The crucifixion is the epitome of justice. Justice demands that sin
> be punished, and the punishment is delivered on the cross to Jesus.
No, justice demands that wrongful acts be punished. Again, not the
same thing at all.
multim...@my-deja.com
Season One
GENESIS
Year Dot, days 1-7
Writer: God (pseudonym for many old people with no clue of basic
science)Director: Lennie Mayne
Roots: Judaism, Pagan myths, etc
Fluffs: Every paragraph starts with And, which is terribly bad grammar.
Goofs: Where does God come from? How can Adam be made first, before
animals, when three pages before, it is established as happening the
other way round? How can a garden grow in a night [time is a metaphor,
days really meaning epochs?] Snakes can't talk. If we are all descended
from Adam and Eve, that means we're all in-bred, and should all have
twelve webbed toes. Where's the sixty-five million years gone between
dinosaurs dying and man rising up? In the scene with the snake, Eve's
hair partly disappears through CSO.
Fashion Victims: Adam's fig leaf. Eve's hair is very Sixties.
Dialogue Triumphs: In the beginning, there was the Word.
Dialogue Disasters: This whole starting everything with 'And.' Sorry,
it really annoys me.
Double Entendres: The shot where Eve first sees the snake is
interesting.
Continuity: No origin is given for God, who made Earth in six days
(yeah, right.) Snakes could talk back then. Eve likes fruit.
Location: Void, Earth, Garden of Eden
Untelevised Adventures: The dinosaurs. God's origin.
The Bottom Line: An Eric Saward of a story, tremendously exciting with
a strong beginning, but after a while, when you stop to think about it,
the whole thing falls around your ears. James Mason adds lovely layers
to God.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Azaxyr
>A lot of the Bible is history, especially much of the Old Testament, the
>Gospels and the book of Acts. There are many, many archeological finds
>supporting the historical aspects of the Bible.
By that reasoning, City of Death is historically
accurate since all the landmarks we see
in the story exist.
"All these worlds....
...Will make excellent sites for our garbage dumps."
Bokman7757
shalt not suffer a witch to live - apparently the hebrew (or something like
that anyway) for witch is similar to the word for murderer, and the two may
have been
confused) >>
I never heard that. I assumed that sometime while Christianity was being taken
to England, some overzealous anti-Pagan crusader decided to surreptitiously
insert that one as a justification for his actions (and incitement for others
to do the same.) The Bible hadn't been printed in English at that time, hence
not widely read among the commonfolk, so who's to know? (I certainly never
heard of witches or female sorceresses (the term used in the New Revised
Standard Version) being common in Moses' day.)
Still, that does make a considerable amount of sense. And apparently the Bible
(or parts of it) was written in Ancient Hebrew, of which we know very little.
Bokman7757
evolution, IMHO. >>
Doesn't say how he did it. Evolution is merely a mechanism- God set it in
motion.
<< Genes serendipitously mutating into new cell structures by random acts of
radiation? HA HA HA HA. Sure, that's real believable. >>
So mutation is an irrational concept? It happens, and it has to happen on a
certain level. Radiation has been proven to cause mutations. A tumor is
accelerated, out of control cell growth- sounds like mutation to me.
<< As far as evolution being proven,
it hasn't been in totality >>
Neither has atomic theory. Neither has the idea that what we percieve as waking
existence isn't all a dream.
Ken McAuliffe
4652 ) wrote:
>In article 8D41...@telos.clara.co.uk, Si Jerram <si...@telos.clara.co.uk> writes:
>>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>>
>>> However it can hardly be said that He championed the underdogs AIW.
>>> He never condemned slavery, for example
>>
>>Not explicitly, no. But to say He never championed the
>>underdog because he didn't explicitly champion one particular
>>type on underdog doesn't follow.
>>
>>
>Ok. How's about giving a list of underdogs he did champion then
>
>Keith
Hmmm...lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes, foreigners, women, those
who were struck by physical and mental illnesses...
Vladimir
<19991030170232...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
><< We had teens in Columbine
>HS declaring their beliefs and being gunned down >>
>
>
>I have a feeling the girl that was referred to would have been shot either
way.
Being in England, I have no idea what this is about. What happened - what's
the context?
Ken McAuliffe
4652 ) wrote:
>In article 5...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Steven Kitson) writes:
>>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>>> In article 619...@netnews.voicenet.com, km...@voicenet.com (Ken McAuliffe) writes:
>>> > I've been a Christian all my life, and a fan for about ten
>>> >years, although I've discovered and accepted that there isn't too
>>> >much about Doctor Who that *is* biblical in the sense of it going out
>>> >of its way to agree with Christian theology. There is much about the
>>> >Doctor that, as a Christian, I've admired (his striving for justice,
>>> >his compassion, his pursuit of truth),
>>
>>> So how come you're still a Christian? None of these is inherent
>>> in Christianity
>>
>>Are you deliberately trolling?
>
>You must be a newbie if you think that was a troll.
>
>>Firstly, both compassion and justice are
>>big themes in Christianity;
>
>And your justification for saying that is what precisely?
>Where's your proof?
>
>Ask the victims of the Crusades if the Christians were compassionate.
>Ask the Huguenots if the Catholics were compassionate.
>Ask the victims of the Inquisition if their oppressors were compassionate.
>etc. etc.
>
>Is the crucifixion recorded in the gospels anything to do with justice?
>(I just know somebody is going to misinterpret that.)
>Where exactly does justice come into Christianity?
>
>>secondly, he never said that he was a
>>Christian because of those things, but that they were things in
>>Christianity that happened to be expressed in 'Dcotor Who'.
>
>No he didn't. Read it again. Of course, what he said and what he meant
>to say are probably quite different.
Actually, Keith, that was precisely what I meant.
>>Presumably the
>>reason he's a Christian is that he believes in the Christian God and the
>>Christian interpretation of the life of Jesus.
Bingo.
>What 'Christian God' would that be?
The God that is love (1 John 4:16).
You know, Keith, at first I was tempted to answer the points you made
one by one, especially after you offered such a "definitive" (i.e.,
incorrect) interpretation of my views. Then I realized that Steven was
probably right, and that you probably are a troll. Which is a shame,
because if you were interested in the answers to the questions that
you posed, then I would gladly engage you in dialogue. However, if it
was just rhetorical trolling, then please stop passing off your
arrogance as rationality.
Finn Clark
> Or do you want to elaborate and list just a few
> of the ways the Gospels contradict themselves?
The two completely different family trees of Jesus?
Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-28.
The Bible is a fairly heavily edited document anyway,
but to get hung up on pedantic details is to completely
miss the point. Don't count the continuity references;
feel the message!
"Thou shalt not read the Bible for its language," said
some guy whose name escapes me, though admittedly
I think he was talking about the King James version,
for which the temptation to do so is greater.
Finn Clark, agnostic.
Steven Kitson
> In article 3...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Steven Kitson) writes:
> >It's fiction. It's not real. It's a story.
> >
> That sounds familiar.
> Now what was that book I read awhile ago that was fiction, not real, a story?
> Ah yes - a bible.
I think you've made your point. Care to stop trolling now?
--
God's in his heaven, all's right with the world
Helen Fayle
David Brunt <D...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7vl2s1$qfh$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Alan S. Wales wrote in message
> >>As they all contradict each other, could they be counted as
> >the first retcons??
>
> down to Earth and have sex with earthly women. They never mention that at
> Sunday school.
Ahem. Also: Elohim - feminine, plural... "El" feminine prefix. "The Shining
Ones" No-one mentions THAT either...
>
> Or the many other commandments they never mention -
> Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
> One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death (I don't
> think it should be a crime just saying jehova!!).
> One who has sex with animals shall be put to death (actually, this is
> understandable).
Or the bits about it being perfectly acceptable to rape and beat women??
Helen Fayle
> Mags wrote in message
> >Why am I suddenly wondering if the first four books of the NT
> >were the Interference of their time? ;-)
>
> retcons??
<smirk> Is there a precedent as well for all the books that the followers of
the 4 gospels would prefer didn't exist being compared to the NA's dismissal
by TV series only fans...??
Helen Fayle
Mags <moosife...@halliday47YADDA.freeserve.YADDA.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7vl1he$kjh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Alan S. Wales wrote in message
> >>"David Brunt" D...@btinternet.com said:
> >
> >
> >>Mags insulted all Christians by saying:
> >>>were the Interference of their time? ;-)
> >
is
> >offensive to all Christians. :-)
>
> oh dear. incorrect level of humour applied. must remember some people miss
> jests. Even when followed with smilie.
Sounds about right around this NG...
>
> Oh, and if I did decide to "insult all christians", I'd do it properly and
> not with a passing remark.
The phrase "shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind." Too easy and
ultimately not worth the effort...
Keith Hood 4652
>Azaxyr wrote:
>> powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales) writes:
>> >I've been a Christian for 28 years and a Dr. Who fan for 16 years. Certain
>> >elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
>
>> So is the bible - what's your point?
>
>I love the smell of trolls in the morning...
>
So are you going to answer him or not?
Keith
---
--
Currently waiting for National Lottery funds to develop a new sig
If Ericsson's opinions ever coincided with mine I'd probably die of shock
Keith Hood 4652
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>> >> In article 619...@netnews.voicenet.com, km...@voicenet.com (Ken McAuliffe) writes:
>> >> >of its way to agree with Christian theology. There is much about the
>> >> >Doctor that, as a Christian, I've admired (his striving for justice,
>> >> >his compassion, his pursuit of truth),
>> >> So how come you're still a Christian? None of these is inherent
>> >> in Christianity
>> >
>
>> >big themes in Christianity;
>
>> And your justification for saying that is what precisely?
>> Where's your proof?
>
>
>God is very specifically a God of Justice (most of the OT)
In what sense does original sin relate to justice?
Ezek 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children,
and women." That is the order of a just god?
1 Sam 15:3 "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have,
and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
That is the order of a just god?
>and also of
>love (most of Paul's letters).
Care to give a f'rinstance? I don't see why I should do all the work.
>Jesus was very up on love - which is
>described very much in terms of compassion.
>
Matt 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not
to send peace, but a sword."
What sort of love is shown by a sword?
Matt 23:27 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers"
Doesn't sound very loving or compassionate.
Matt 5:44 "I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you...". Matt 23:27 doesn't sound much like a blessing.
>> Ask the victims of the Crusades if the Christians were compassionate.
>> Ask the Huguenots if the Catholics were compassionate.
>> Ask the victims of the Inquisition if their oppressors were compassionate.
>> etc. etc.
>
>That has nothing to do with Christianity. The Bible can be preverted to
>give a backing to the most heinous acts, just as anything else can, by
>those who want to justify themselves or gain support.
>
Are you saying that they didn't believe themselves to be Christians?
>> Is the crucifixion recorded in the gospels anything to do with justice?
>> (I just know somebody is going to misinterpret that.)
>> Where exactly does justice come into Christianity?
>
>The crucifixion is the epitome of justice. Justice demands that sin be
>punished, and the punishment is delivered on the cross to Jesus.
>
So what was Jesus' crime/sin? What was he being punished for?
Who was crucifying him? Under what authority and precepts of justice?
>> >secondly, he never said that he was a
>> >Christian because of those things, but that they were things in
>> >Christianity that happened to be expressed in 'Dcotor Who'.
>
>> >Presumably the
>> >reason he's a Christian is that he believes in the Christian God and the
>> >Christian interpretation of the life of Jesus.
>> What 'Christian God' would that be?
>> What 'Christian interpretation of the life of Jesus' would that be?
>
>The ones in the Bible?
>
What bible would that be?
Or are you deliberately missing the point?
Keith Hood 4652
>
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote in message >
>>Now what was that book I read awhile ago that was fiction, not real, a
>story?
>>
>>Ah yes - a bible.
>>
>
Why? What's the relevance?
1 Thess 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Prov 14:15 "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man
looketh well to his going."
>
>I'm certain that the bible is meant to be the written form of oral tradition
>of true tales. Some of it is analogy, some of it is real, but its been
>corrupted by being mistranslated hundreds of times (eg thou shalt not suffer
>a witch to live - apparently the hebrew (or something like that anyway) for
>witch is similar to the word for murderer, and the two may have been
>confused),
and which words were those?
Keith Hood 4652
>
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote in message
>>Ask the Huguenots if the Catholics were compassionate.
>>Ask the victims of the Inquisition if their oppressors were compassionate.
>>etc. etc.
>>
>
>
>the oppressed beleived differently. It was not the christian teachings that
>caused the horrors you mention. Humans are capable of great bad on their
>own, and just saying that they are doing it in the name of God doesn't mean
>that their beleifs are really behind anything. Look at the churches of the
>middle ages, many of whom were more interested in gathering riches than
>tending the metaphorical flock...
>
But they still believed themselves to be Christian
Keith Hood 4652
>A lot of the Bible is history, especially much of the Old Testament, the
>Gospels and the book of Acts. There are many, many archeological finds
>supporting the historical aspects of the Bible.
>
Much of the bible is contradictory. How can archeological finds support
differing stories?
Care to give me a f'rinstance?
Keith Hood 4652
>
>
>>Mags insulted all Christians by saying:
>>>Why am I suddenly wondering if the first four books of the NT
>>>were the Interference of their time? ;-)
>
>Ohh., Puh-leeze. Lawrence Miles being compared to the Apostles. Now that is
>offensive to all Christians. :-)
>
>
>>retcons??
>>
>
>The Gospels don't contradict each other. I think you mean that they don't
>necessarily contain the same parables or events. But the overall theme of the
>Gospels is quite clear.
>
>contradict themselves?
>
Consider
Resurrection
what time did the women visit the tomb? Mark 16:2 vs John 20:1
who visited? John 20:1 vs Matt 28:1 vs Mark 16:1 vs Luke 24:10
was it open or closed? Luke 24:2 vs Matt 28:1-2
whom did they see? Matt 28:2 vs Mark 16:5 vs Luke 24:4 vs John 20:11-12
were they inside or outside the tomb? Matt 28:2 vs Mark 16:5 vs
Luke 24:3-4 vs John 20:11-12
Crucifixion
what colour robe was Jesus given? Matt 27:28 vs Mark 15:17 vs John 19:2
when was he crucified? Mark 15:25 vs Luke 23:43-44 vs John 19:14-16
which women were watching? Matt 27:55-56 vs Mark 15:40 vs John 19:25
from afar or near? Matt 27:55-56 vs Luke 23:49 vs Mark 15:40 vs John 19:25
Do you want more?
I could do this all day! (thankfully I won't)
Keith
---
--
Currently waiting for National Lottery funds to develop a new sig
If Ericsson's opinions ever coincided with mine I'd probably die of shock
Please do not read the rest of this rubbish. It's only there as padding because
my newsreader now refuses to post anything with less new content than original.
In most cases this would be enough but extreme circumstances may require even
more rubbish being inserted below. Please disregard that also.
Steven Kitson
> In article 4...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Steven Kitson) writes:
> >Azaxyr wrote:
> >> >elements of the program are non-biblical? How about the whole show? It's
> >> >fiction ...
> >
> >> So is the bible - what's your point?
> >
> >I love the smell of trolls in the morning...
> >
> So are you going to answer him or not?
Okay.
No, I don't think the Bible is fiction.
You can laugh at me now.
David Brunt
You have heard when Sister Helen of Fayle spoke the words of wisdom here
today about the passages of the god book about it being perfectly
acceptable to rape and beat women??
And we did pray for her soul, even though it is a truth that the plot holey
bible is filled with such pronouncements and none of the congregation did
accept that they were there.
But remember these words. The bible clearly indicates that god condemns
people with tattoos (Leviticus), male Homosexuals (Leviticus, though
females are okay it seems), dwarves, those with any physical imperfections
(though he causes them a fair bit of that himself), cross-dressing
(Deuteronomy), divorce (Malachi, and others - nobody mentions that Joseph
wanted to divorce Mary after the angel visit and God had to talk him out of
it), prostitutes and those who use them (Corinthians 1), women (Timothy 1
and many other places), widows (Corinthians 2). Who amongst us does not
fall into one of those categories in some way? Thank you brother Clinton,
we know about you. The confession box is over there in the corner, please
knock and wait....
And so let it come to pass that we shall not speak of them again. But
they're there if anyone takes the time to read the book and understand what
it actually says. And let me tell you, it ain't no shooting barrel of
laughs for the first five hundred pages. Is that right Father Jack?
<arse>
I shall leave you, brethren, with but one final thought for this evening.
The text is taken from John 8. "I pass judgement on no one. But if I do
judge, my decisions are right..." And now, children, here's your puzzle
for today. When Jesus refers to himself as a shepherd and his followers as
his flock, just consider that he is describing some sheep......
And now we shall sing Psalm 44 and the verger will bring round the
collection plate. Please, no foreign coins this week.
The Bishop of Wales
[John 15:18]
Steven Kitson
> Or are you deliberately missing the point?
I think you're missing the point.
Anyone can quote single Bible verses out of conetext to make it look like
that say something they don't.
You're a very silly troll, and I'm not going to talk to you any more.
Keith Hood 4652
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote in message <7vk4i1$9...@newstoo.ericsson.se>...
>
>>>Some of the NAs and MAs tread on thin ice, but on the whole I tend to
>>>approach everything with an open mind
>>
>>Does that include the bible?
>
>The best way to approach the Bible is with a healthily open mind. I get the
>impression from your posts on this subject that you're happier to approach
>it with a closed mind - at any rate, closed to the possibility that it might
>be true - but I wouldn't really recommend taking such an approach.
How can something be true if it's full of iconsistencies, obfuscations
and downright impossibilities?
>Obviously there is a need for a degree of healthy scepticism - some of the
>claims made in the Bible are so outlandish (the dead raised, the sea being
>walked on, the Son of God walking amongst us 2000 years ago) that to accept
>anything therein *solely* on the ground that "the Bible says so" would be
>intellectual suicide.
erm. this seems to be at odds with the rest of your post.
the bible exorts people to ask questions and not take everything at
face value. Sadly too many people ignore this exortation in their own
reading of the bible.
>But starting from first principles (such as, it is an
>open possibility that the sort of deity written of in the Bible - to whit a
>theistic interventionist God - *could* exist) and proceeding from there in
>one's interpretation of the Bible, would lead to an acceptance of the vast
>majority of it as *potentially* if not *actually* a true, historically
>reliable account of events. Consider this an invitation to try it some
>time.
>
What about when it gets facts blatantly wrong? How could it then even
be 'potentially' true?
Give me a f'rinstance of an event you believe to be true in the bible
David Brunt
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>> Or are you deliberately missing the point?
>
>I think you're missing the point.
>
>Anyone can quote single Bible verses out of conetext to make
>it look like that say something they don't.
And isn't that exactly what Christians do?
And exactly what they always say when they refuse to accept anything
opposing their view.
David
Keith Hood 4652
>In article <7vkf52$a...@newstoo.ericsson.se>,
>etl...@etlxdmx.ericsson.se said:
>
>>> because he didn't explicitly champion one particular type on
>>> underdog doesn't follow.
>>
>> Ok. How's about giving a list of underdogs he did champion then
>
>thing, I mean... they were about to stone her for adultery, right?)
>
Why didn't he cast the first stone?
Or is he saying that he too is a sinner?
But then there's 1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in
his mouth" and 1 John 3:5 "And in him is no sin" to name but two.
Keith Hood 4652
>On 1 Nov 1999 13:13:48 GMT, etl...@etlxdmx.ericsson.se ( Keith Hood
>
>>In article 5...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Steven Kitson) writes:
>>>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>>>
>>>Are you deliberately trolling?
>>
>>You must be a newbie if you think that was a troll.
>>
>one by one, especially after you offered such a "definitive" (i.e.,
>incorrect) interpretation of my views. Then I realized that Steven was
>probably right, and that you probably are a troll.
Which part of "You must be a newbie if you think that was a troll."
didn't you understand?
Perhaps, instead of dismissing me, you would care to answer the points
I raised in my other posts.
Keith
---
--
Currently waiting for National Lottery funds to develop a new sig
If Ericsson's opinions ever coincided with mine I'd probably die of shock
x
x
x
x
x
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
news:7vmiif$i...@newstoo.ericsson.se...
> Wasn't Jesus without sin then?
> Why didn't he cast the first stone?
> Or is he saying that he too is a sinner?
> But then there's 1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in
> his mouth" and 1 John 3:5 "And in him is no sin" to name but two.
Keith, with respect, you're really reaching with that one. Obviously the
object of the exercise was to prevent the stoning; by his criteria he would
be the only person who /could/, if they desired, stone the woman, but
obviously he didn't.
And what's that line in the Bible about the Devil being able to quote
scripture to his own ends? };*P
Can we please call time on this thread? All we have here as far as I can see
is a few well-mannered Christians happy to accept that the Bible is not
necessarily 100% accurate, and on the other side a bunch of rabid
anti-Christians determined to tear people's belief systems into little
shreds.
I know which group I'd rather be a member of.
Ozzy
Keith Hood 4652
>Keith Hood 4652 wrote:
>> >It's fiction. It's not real. It's a story.
>> >
>> That sounds familiar.
>
>
>> Ah yes - a bible.
>
>
Care to read the bible again in the light of those and explain the
contradictions?
Si Jerram
> Okay.
> No, I don't think the Bible is fiction.
> You can laugh at me now.
I think the case is:
Either the Bible is 100% acurate uncontradicted fact,
or it is fiction.
But that's the logic of the false dicotomy.
I would certainly not agree with anyone who truely thought the
bible to be 100% acurate Historical fact, and that none
of it is allegory, parable, or mistranslated.
But that doesn't mean I think the Bible is fiction.
--
Simon Jerram Email:si...@telos.clara.co.uk
"Your policies have failed the test of time,
'Cause you sold them down the river."
Si Jerram
> Wasn't Jesus without sin then?
No.
> Why didn't he cast the first stone?
See above. He didn't beleive in punishment by stoning?
> Or is he saying that he too is a sinner?
No, but he is.
> But then there's 1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in
> his mouth" and 1 John 3:5 "And in him is no sin" to name but two.
That's just relatively speaking. False logic. Again.