OT - God fearing (Jew/Chritian/Muslim)?

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:44:58 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:56:08 -0700, charlie b <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've never heard the phrase God fearing Buddhist.
>>
>> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
>> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
>
>Another way of looking at it is that Buddhism allows for a god (or
>many gods) but doesn't require one.
>
>When you get right down to it, all religions are the same in that
>they provide a code of conduct for living a "good" life. Where
>Buddhism differs is that it basically says "you'll be happy if you
>live this way", whereas all the others say "god will punish you
>if you don't live this way".
>

Orthodox Christianity differs from what you correctly describe all of the
other of the world's religions' statement, "You must live a good life and
do good to be found worthy" by saying, "you must live a perfect life to be
found worthy, but you are unable to do so, therefore, it has already done
for you."

That doesn't mean that Christians don't try to live a good life, it means
that they do so out of gratitude for the gift they have been given, not out
of fear of punishment and also knowing that by doing those good things,
they will be happy by living that way.

AC <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:24:12 +0000 (UTC),
> mel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>My memory may be faulty, but wasn't there a little episode with Abraham and
> > his son Isaac? I don't remember Abraham feeling that God's request was in
> > any way rare or unusual.
> >
> > Genesis 22. All we know is this..... God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
> > Abraham was prepared to do what God asked of him. God stopped him and
> > offered a substitute. We do not know how Abraham felt. God provided a ram
> > as a substitute and many believe this is a prophetic allegory of God
> > providing Jesus, "The Lamb of God", as a substitute for ourselves.
> >
> > This is taught as if God said, "Hey Abraham! Go kill your son for me."
> >
> > "Uh.. Ok."
> >
> > No.... I suspect that since God rewarded Abraham greatly for showing his
> > willingness it was because he struggled greatly with it.
>
> Quite frankly, if anyone demanded I kill my son, I'd tell him to sod off.

You act as if children are not routinely sacrificed based on their
parent's beliefs.

If you believe there is nothing you can or should do to prevent your
child from being a victim of our drug culture, then if they die from
drug related injury, you've willingly sacrificed them to a power (the
drug culture) that you believe is greater than yourself. Or perhaps
military service extracts the same measure of flesh or armed rebellion
against the same. Even beyond that the everyday gods of greed and vice
are always taking their toll on young lives. You've forgotten what it
is to be a child and know the blind arrogance of the adult world.

Abraham believed his god to be greater than cultural norms, flag
wavers or the daily lusts of men and as others might gladly sacrifice
their children to these lesser gods, Abraham was tested to see if his
faith was equal to the same blind arrogance of other adults. At least,
he knew he was being tested... others sacrifice their children to
lesser gods without even the sense of being tested or conscious of the
choices that they've made to bring their children to destruction.

Of course, Yahweh didn't take Abraham's sacrifice, but as we all know
that lesser gods routinely do.


JTG 11/25/04

[email protected] (John Thomas Grisham) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> AC <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:24:12 +0000 (UTC),
> > mel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>My memory may be faulty, but wasn't there a little episode with Abraham and
> > > his son Isaac? I don't remember Abraham feeling that God's request was in
> > > any way rare or unusual.
> > >
> > > Genesis 22. All we know is this..... God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
> > > Abraham was prepared to do what God asked of him. God stopped him and
> > > offered a substitute. We do not know how Abraham felt. God provided a ram
> > > as a substitute and many believe this is a prophetic allegory of God
> > > providing Jesus, "The Lamb of God", as a substitute for ourselves.
> > >
> > > This is taught as if God said, "Hey Abraham! Go kill your son for me."
> > >
> > > "Uh.. Ok."
> > >
> > > No.... I suspect that since God rewarded Abraham greatly for showing his
> > > willingness it was because he struggled greatly with it.
> >
> > Quite frankly, if anyone demanded I kill my son, I'd tell him to sod off.
>
> You act as if children are not routinely sacrificed based on their
> parent's beliefs.
>
> If you believe there is nothing you can or should do to prevent your
> child from being a victim of our drug culture, then if they die from
> drug related injury, you've willingly sacrificed them to a power (the
> drug culture) that you believe is greater than yourself. Or perhaps
> military service extracts the same measure of flesh or armed rebellion
> against the same. Even beyond that the everyday gods of greed and vice
> are always taking their toll on young lives. You've forgotten what it
> is to be a child and know the blind arrogance of the adult world.
>
> Abraham believed his god to be greater than cultural norms, flag
> wavers or the daily lusts of men and as others might gladly sacrifice
> their children to these lesser gods, Abraham was tested to see if his
> faith was equal to the same blind arrogance of other adults. At least,
> he knew he was being tested... others sacrifice their children to
> lesser gods without even the sense of being tested or conscious of the
> choices that they've made to bring their children to destruction.
>
> Of course, Yahweh didn't take Abraham's sacrifice, but as we all know
> that lesser gods routinely do.
>
>
> JTG 11/25/04

Addendum:

I was listening to the World Report with Bill Lehrer today and they
reported that 11 million children are on prescription drugs for
hyperactivity and depression. It has suddenly occurred to leading
psychologists that by drugging the problems, the children never learn
to manage them and the problems just become more deeply imbedded and
more complex. On the other hand, parents don't have time to talk
through their children's problems, or get them better help and public
schools don't have the money, resources or authority to help the
children, either. So, they conclude, if 11 million children are
drugged to the point of becoming inescapably dependent on prescribed
drugs for their entire lives, it's just good economics for the drug
companies.

Just another power greater than ourselves to whom we are expected to
conceed our will and children being sacrificed to prove our faith in
the power and powers, corporate entities and lesser gods of our modern
world.


JTG 11/26/04

mel <[email protected]> wrote:

> >It says in Genesis (aka The First Book of Moses), that the smell of burning
> flesh is pleasing to G-d. This is perhaps the reason not only for the
> burning of heretics, but also for the prevalence of wars.
>
> You are so far out of line with this. What you refer to is the burnt
> offerings by Noah of clean animals and birds to God. In essence a BBQ.

More evidence that God is Australian.
--
John S. Wilkins [email protected]
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com

God cheats

AC <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:24:12 +0000 (UTC),
> mel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>My memory may be faulty, but wasn't there a little episode with Abraham and
> > his son Isaac? I don't remember Abraham feeling that God's request was in
> > any way rare or unusual.
> >
> > Genesis 22. All we know is this..... God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
> > Abraham was prepared to do what God asked of him. God stopped him and
> > offered a substitute. We do not know how Abraham felt. God provided a ram
> > as a substitute and many believe this is a prophetic allegory of God
> > providing Jesus, "The Lamb of God", as a substitute for ourselves.
> >
> > This is taught as if God said, "Hey Abraham! Go kill your son for me."
> >
> > "Uh.. Ok."
> >
> > No.... I suspect that since God rewarded Abraham greatly for showing his
> > willingness it was because he struggled greatly with it.
>
> Quite frankly, if anyone demanded I kill my son, I'd tell him to sod off.

Yes, but in that time (of writing - the story is fictional) children
were regarded as chattel. And chattel are disposable at the request of
the ranking individual to which the chattel owner (the parent) owes
loyatly and deference. So the story assumes merely that Abraham is asked
to destroy a good in order to show to YHWH that his loyalty is firm.

You, on the other hand, assume that human life, and particularly the
life of your children, has an intrinsic worth - moral progress has been
made since the Bible was written. Fortunately.
--
John S. Wilkins [email protected]
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com

God cheats

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> More evidene exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
> universe just exploded into existance one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
> causitive agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
> "cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
> then become unstable with no causitive agent to have made it so.
>
Where did the universe come from?

Where did (the) god(s) come from?

Those are equivalent questions. The only logical response to the
question of the origin of everything is "I don't know."

It's a shame more people won't say that, but then we're a species
trapped in infancy, always asking why and demanding a reason.

An alternate response is "It's turtles, all the way down!"

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> This same God speaks of the other practices you speak of by other cultures
> rather specifically in
>
> Deuteronomy 12:
>
> 31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in
> worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD
> hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to
> their gods.
>
My memory may be faulty, but wasn't there a little episode with Abraham
and his son Isaac? I don't remember Abraham feeling that God's
request was in any way rare or unusual.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:59:35 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>. I'd
>see a bodhisattva as divine, but definitely not a god. I think this is
>a generally held view across all schools of Buddhism (for
>bodhisattva), but there are lots of entities in (for instance) the
>Tibet demonology whose place I really don't understand.

"The bamboo shadows are sweeping the stairs
But no dust is stirred
The moonlight penetrates deep in the bottom of the pool
But no trace is left in the water"

D.T. Suzuki, 1949



Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:55:18 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:29:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Orthodox Christianity differs from what you correctly describe all of
>> the
>> other of the world's religions' statement, "You must live a good life
>> and do good to be found worthy" by saying, "you must live a perfect life
>> to be found worthy, but you are unable to do so, therefore, it has
>> already done for you."

Huh? Spreak Engrish, Troop.


>That's the gist of much Zen. One already has Buddha-nature; to strive for
>it is to lose it. No Hindus have chimed in yet--what's going on there?

Perhaps they don't feel the need to enlighten us.


>Is it on topic to have a discussion where one of the important figures was
>a carpenter and another started out under a tree? Zen even offers uncarved
>blocks.

What is the sound of one hand carving?

----
- Nice perfume. Must you marinate in it? -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

>It cracks me up that anyone whose understanding of the scientific view of
the origins of the universe and of terrestrial species is as pitiful as
yours seems to be has the chutzpah to criticize the intelligence of others.

umm... ok. I'll admit my "version" which by the way happens to be expounded
upon by many who "think" they know what the scientific community's views are
was an over simplification of facts. You walk up top the average individual
and ask them about "The Big Bang" theory and how it applies to evolution and
that is basically what you will get. That sir.... was my point.

>It says in Genesis (aka The First Book of Moses), that the smell of burning
flesh is pleasing to G-d. This is perhaps the reason not only for the
burning of heretics, but also for the prevalence of wars.

You are so far out of line with this. What you refer to is the burnt
offerings by Noah of clean animals and birds to God. In essence a BBQ.

"U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@aol.com> wrote in message news:<5PIod.5835$hJ6.4322@trndny01>...
> gn Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:46:28 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "mel" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>As far as "Creationism" being only a Protestant concept... surely you jest.
> >>Or are you really that misinformed? Genesis was written by a Jew.
> >
> > It was written and compiled by a great many Jews - but it is not clear
> > the authors were all necessarily YECs.
> >
>
> None of whom could have grokked Maxwells Equations of Electromagnetism,


So if Genesis had been written today instead of in the Bronze Age, it would read:

...And God said 'dude, you're getting a dell'.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:36:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) in
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
>> >> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
>> >
>> >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
>> >Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.
>> >
>> >I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.
>>
>> Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
>> *born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator.
>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>
>You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
>heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was
>a Protestant concept, like Creationism.

http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm

_Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_

I don't care what your religious views are, read this sermon. You can
learn much about early American Puritans. More to the point, just
imagine being in his church one Sunday when he preached this sermon.
"God-Fearing" is mild, absolutely terrified is a more apt description.


" There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any
moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest
have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. --
He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most
easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of
difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself,
and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is
not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defence from the
power of God."

and

" They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never
stands in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power
at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls
aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of
the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why
cumbereth it the ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is
every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the
hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds it back."


--
Matt Silberstein

Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball

Damien Rice

gn Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:46:28 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "mel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>As far as "Creationism" being only a Protestant concept... surely you jest.
>>Or are you really that misinformed? Genesis was written by a Jew.
>
> It was written and compiled by a great many Jews - but it is not clear
> the authors were all necessarily YECs.
>

None of whom could have grokked Maxwells Equations of Electromagnetism,
Calculus not yet having been invented.

So instead of integrals in polar coordinates involving the dell
operator, we have "Let There Be Light."

For a large segment of the population, the two expressions are roughtly
equivalent--and it's arguable that they ARE in fact, equivalent. MEsoE
yield the speed of light as a Universal Constant.

"Why is the speed of light c?"

"Such is the nature of light."

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
>> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
>> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
>
>I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
>Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.
>
>I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.

Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
*born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:49:37 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> More evidene exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
>> universe just exploded into existance one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
>> causitive agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
>> "cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
>> then become unstable with no causitive agent to have made it so.
>>
>Where did the universe come from?
>
>Where did (the) god(s) come from?
>
>Those are equivalent questions. The only logical response to the
>question of the origin of everything is "I don't know."
>

To be logically consistent, one must either acknowledge an eternal,
uncreated universe, or an eternal, uncreated God that created a finite (in
time) universe. The problem is that modern cosmology does neither. RC
Sproule is an apologist who does a pretty good job in presenting this case
and illustrating that any other conclusions destroy the very foundation of
science and logic, and thus, by extension any conclusions that could be
drawn from such science or logic that rely upon those conclusions. Eternal
and uncreated implies exactly that, i.e. to the question of where either of
the objects of your questions came from, the answer is "they were always
there, without beginning or end". Observations from science tend to point
to a finite universe.

Does anyone know for sure? No, no matter what anyone says, they are
placing their faith in either modern cosmology or religion -- machts nicht
-- it's faith either way.

>It's a shame more people won't say that, but then we're a species
>trapped in infancy, always asking why and demanding a reason.
>
>An alternate response is "It's turtles, all the way down!"

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:18:43 GMT, "mel" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>More evidence exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
>universe just exploded into existence one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
>causative agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
>"cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
>then become unstable with no causative agent to have made it so.
>
>Once upon a time there was nothing....nothing.... nope not even that..
>nothing. And then there was just a bit... just a little dusty bit. Just
>floating around and then there were more bits.. you know.. just attracting
>and then compacting and compacting and swirling around and all of a sudden
>BOOM! it blew up and went all over the place and it was spinning around and
>hot.. very hot.. ewww can't touch it yet... and um.. had to wait for it to
>cool down a bit just a bit more and then it gets a little bit oozy... just a
>bit oozy on top and um a wiggle... we have a wiggle... then more wiggling
>and as it's wiggling..um.... fins, scales and it grows a tail.... and it's
>swimming around and as it's swimming around one day it goes," I think I'll
>go for a walk." And it grew these legs and the tail fell off and it went
>running around happily and then it grew hair and another tail... longer this
>time and it climbed up in trees for a bit and then the tail fell off and
>shaved and then.... it became an evolutionist.....
>
>It cracks me up to hear people claim to be too "intelligent" to believe in
>God.

For me, it's not that I don't believe in God- it's that I don't
believe in religious rhetoric; and that's an awful big difference in
my opinion. I don't need a priest or a book to tell me that there is
some ultimate force in the universe that is beyond my comprehension.
The problem is not with the idea of God, it's with the idea that one
book, any book, holds the answers to all of life's questions. The
Bible was written by people, for people- and all too often it's just
an excuse to bully and scare people who are too meek to question what
they are told in Sunday school. Sure, there's plenty of good stuff in
the Bible, but there is also a lot of good stuff in the Origin of
Species, the Republic, the Organon, Euclid's Elements, ad nauseum. To
simply say that everything one needs to know was written by an
anonymus author or authors somewhere between 1500 and 2000 years ago
is sheer foolishness.

Let us accept that the Bible is the literal word of God Almighty for a
moment- which version should we turn to? There is the Torah of the
Jews (Old Testiment), The King James Version, the NIV and several
Greek translations, just to name a (very) few. Who is it that can
point us to the One that is that literal Word? Does the true Bible
include the Nag Hammadi manuscripts or the Apocrypha? Were the
Gnostic verses removed during the council of Nice the words of God
removed by politicians, or did Constantine have God's ear when he
convened that council? All throughout history, this book has been
translated, edited, added to and truncated. Words have been
mistranslated or omitted, often for a political agenda of great
importance at the time- but no longer relevant in our society.
Traditions have been added throughout the history of the Catholic
church (and as far as I know, all the modern versions of Christianity
descend from that mother) to mollify the pagans who were forcably
conquered and converted to the "True Faith" of Rome.

So, why exactly is it that we should open up our [your translation
here] Bible to learn the Truths of the Ages? Is it because it is
actually the Word of God, or is it because it makes you feel
comfortable to think that everything has already been figured out and
decided for you? It's a good starting point for thought, but I just
don't see how it can be so rigidly adhered to by so many. That's what
I'm too intelligent for- not for God. There's plenty of evidence that
indicates evolution; we don't have it all figured out yet, but someday
we might. Why close your eyes to science, and choose to believe
blindly? My theory, not from the Bible- just a guess- is that if
there is a paternal God entity that watches over us all, he must feel
a rush of pride whenever he sees us learn and advance our own
understanding of existance. As a father, would he rather see his
children learn and grow (even in the face of mistakes) or reach a
state of semi-conciousness and then just lay there drooling and
patting one another on the back, waiting to placidly to get to heaven?
If you were created, I doubt you were created to be a simple playback
device for scripture. Challenge, learn and explore yourself and your
world- don't just let a bunch of nimwits in black frocks tell you how
to live your life. Only death lies down that road.





Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >More evidence exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
> universe just exploded into existence one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
> causative agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
> "cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
> then become unstable with no causative agent to have made it so.
>
> Once upon a time there was nothing....nothing.... nope not even that..
> nothing. And then there was just a bit... just a little dusty bit. Just
> floating around and then there were more bits.. you know.. just attracting
> and then compacting and compacting and swirling around and all of a sudden
> BOOM! it blew up and went all over the place and it was spinning around and
> hot.. very hot.. ewww can't touch it yet... and um.. had to wait for it to
> cool down a bit just a bit more and then it gets a little bit oozy... just a
> bit oozy on top and um a wiggle... we have a wiggle... then more wiggling
> and as it's wiggling..um.... fins, scales and it grows a tail.... and it's
> swimming around and as it's swimming around one day it goes," I think I'll
> go for a walk." And it grew these legs and the tail fell off and it went
> running around happily and then it grew hair and another tail... longer this
> time and it climbed up in trees for a bit and then the tail fell off and
> shaved and then.... it became an evolutionist.....
>
> It cracks me up to hear people claim to be too "intelligent" to believe in
> God.

If you find it humorous, then I suggest you read Sam Harris' book,
"End of Faith". It'll sober you right up. At the very least, got his
website and download the first 10 pages for free.

http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/book-excerpts/

>If you find it humorous, then I suggest you read Sam Harris' book,
"End of Faith". It'll sober you right up.

I'd suggest to you a book by Lee Strobel titled "The Case for Faith."

>Where did the universe come from?

>Where did (the) god(s) come from?

>Those are equivalent questions.

Only if the assumption is made that both are confined to the physical realm
as we know it. The problem isn't that people won't say they don't know.....
the problem is that they think they know enough.

>One thing he came up with is that the Hebrew can be interpreted to mean
that Adam was created separately from other humans--he made a good case for
this the details of which I can't recall now--and the whole thing makes more
sense if that is the case.

This isn't quite the revelation you make it out to be. Nor has it been lost
in translation. Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. Cain killed
Abel. Then Cain was cast out with a mark from God so nobody else would kill
him. Then Cain took a wife from the land of Nod. The story doesn't go that
God created Adam and Eve and that was it..... the story says that God
created Adam first then Eve. The significance of Adam and Eve as briefly as
possible is they were the first and the beginning of the lineage that makes
up the entire bible. The old testament all the way up until the birth of
Christ is a history of a single family line.

>Or Adam was the first of a special kind of man. If the lifespans of the
early descendants of Adam are to be believed then he and his descendants
were not quite like "we know man".

That's a good point. In Genesis 6 God said his spirit wouldn't dwell in man
forever because he was corrupt. He placed a cap on longevity of 120 years.
Noah and his descendents still lived for many years afterwards but the life
span of man grew shorter soon afterwards.

>And the SF fan in me has me noticing that this is a reasonably way for a
primitive person with no real comprehension of genetics to interpret an
explanation of dilution of hereditary characteristics by interbreeding with
a population that lacks those characteristics

The quibble I have with that is it implies that merely an interpretation of
an occurrence is what you find in Genesis. "Primitive" man reaching for an
explanation. If this is true how do you explain the concept man was created
from a small particle? True it refers to this particle being dust but as
you said, the comprehension of this "primitive" man was somewhat limited.
Is it possible that a DNA strand was what was explained but it got lost in
comparison?

>This is correct, but it is not the way that we are normally taught that
things went. That leaves the Land of Nod as a sticking point, and he finds
that it really isn't because the Nodians were in some way a different kind
of human from Adam and Eve--what the difference is is not clear, but the
wording seems to indicate that there is some kind of difference.

Nod quite literally means "wandering". The land of Nod was the region east
of Eden where the people were a nomadic wandering group not having an "Eden"
of their own they could call home. That is the significant difference
between these people and Adam and Eve in relation to the story of the Bible.
Quite possibly other differences existed that have something to do with
evolution. Maybe not. The important thing is that Adam was the first "man"
as we know man. From there the story begins... the rest is just a
diversion.

>My memory may be faulty, but wasn't there a little episode with Abraham and
his son Isaac? I don't remember Abraham feeling that God's request was in
any way rare or unusual.

Genesis 22. All we know is this..... God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
Abraham was prepared to do what God asked of him. God stopped him and
offered a substitute. We do not know how Abraham felt. God provided a ram
as a substitute and many believe this is a prophetic allegory of God
providing Jesus, "The Lamb of God", as a substitute for ourselves.

This is taught as if God said, "Hey Abraham! Go kill your son for me."

"Uh.. Ok."

No.... I suspect that since God rewarded Abraham greatly for showing his
willingness it was because he struggled greatly with it.

>I think you're missing my point. Why would people think it possible that
a god would need such things? Sure, the god of Israel condemned the Ba'al
worshippers, but he came back at the Israelites with a whole bunch of
strange things of his own: dietary restrictions, killing even to the last
goat of your enemies, things like that.

>On a scale somewhat smaller than human sacrifice, it's still quite common
among Christian religions to propose that god requires suffering. My
point is, why? He's a big guy, why does he need suffering?

>I just don't get it, and I've pondered it quite a bit.


It isn't so much what God needed as it is what man needed. Why did God
institute sacrifices? As atonement for our sins. He cared enough for our
mental health to institute a practice that we could walk away from feeling
like we "paid the price" for our guilt. It wasn't that HE needed the
sacrifice for payment...WE needed a way to rid ourselves of guilt. Think
about it.... God can create all the animals he needs.... man can't. The
thought God asking man to offer what is rightfully his in the first place
doesn't make sense..... unless.... it was for our need.... not his.

Dietary restrictions... most of which was for sanitation purposes. Drain
the blood from the meat... it'll keep longer. Don't eat pork.... nasty
stuff unless kept properly refrigerated... same goes for chicken. Be kind
to the animal before you kill it. God loves them too.

Killing even to the last goat of your enemies..... submission for one.
Protection against greed for another. The land was to be reward enough with
the faith that God would provide.... no need for spoils of war.

Required suffering for God..... I understand there may be some "Christian
faiths" that believe this but I myself don't think it's biblical. At least
not in the sense it's practiced. The belief is that if you inflict
suffering upon yourself you can convince God you are sincere. I do not see
where God has ever required it. As far as sacrificing to God from God's
perspective... he gave it to you, you willingly give it back to him.... he
gives it back. In fact, specifically stated... this is the only area you
have permission to test him.

>Seems to me that he wouldn't need fear to encourage good behavior. All
he'd pretty much have to do is come down here and talk to us a bit. Rewards
are far better for changing behavior than punishments.

Check your messages. He did come down here to talk to us for a bit and
yes.... he told us of rewards. Then he took all the punishments on himself
so we wouldn't have to..... does this change your behavior?

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:56:08 -0700, charlie b <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I've never heard the phrase God fearing Buddhist.
>
> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.

Another way of looking at it is that Buddhism allows for a god (or
many gods) but doesn't require one.

When you get right down to it, all religions are the same in that
they provide a code of conduct for living a "good" life. Where
Buddhism differs is that it basically says "you'll be happy if you
live this way", whereas all the others say "god will punish you
if you don't live this way".

John

(not too bothered by OT threads in the wreck)

>You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was
a Protestant concept, like Creationism.

Part of the reason you may not be hearing about them Fred is who you are
conversing with. The "God-Fearing Concept" you refer to is a biblical one..
one that is equally applied to Jews, Catholics or Prostestants. I cannot
vouch for Muslims but I suspect since they trace their heritage back to
Abraham it might apply there also.

Genesis 20:11,22:12,31:42,31:53,42:18

As far as "Creationism" being only a Protestant concept... surely you jest.
Or are you really that misinformed? Genesis was written by a Jew. If you
don't believe something that's fine Fred... but at least learn the facts.

"mel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>As far as "Creationism" being only a Protestant concept... surely you jest.
>Or are you really that misinformed? Genesis was written by a Jew.

It was written and compiled by a great many Jews - but it is not clear
the authors were all necessarily YECs.

--
The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> More evidene exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
>>universe just exploded into existance one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
>>causitive agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
>>"cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
>>then become unstable with no causitive agent to have made it so.
>
> This reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw some years back:
>
> "I believe in the Big Bang Theory.
> God said 'Let there be light'
> and BANG! it happened."
>
> FWIW, I'm one who does not subscribe to the idea that the Bible, and the
> theory of evolution, are necessarily mutually exclusive. Genesis is not,
> and was not intended to be, a science textbook. It states clearly that God
> created the universe and everything in it, but doesn't really go into any
> details of *how* he chose to go about it. There's no logical contradiction
> inherent in supposing that he chose to allow species to form via Darwinian
> evolution.

A friend of mine has spent the better part of the last decade picking
Genesis apart word by word in the original Hebrew. One thing he came up
with is that the Hebrew can be interpreted to mean that Adam was created
separately from other humans--he made a good case for this the details of
which I can't recall now--and the whole thing makes more sense if that is
the case. There are many other cases where a translation went one way in
the various English-language Bibles when it would make more sense for it to
go another that changes the whole meaning. It's fascinating to talk to
him--I really should take notes because I can't remember a tenth of what he
tells me. The bottom line is that the Bible may very well not be saying
what we have been taught that it is saying.

He's also coming around to my view that in terms of accuracy it is for the
most part at the level of journalistic reportage. Sometimes it relates
events more accurately than others. That means though that one should be
careful of the inferences one draws from it--if one accepts that there is a
God and that the Bible is "inspired by God", it may be exactly what God
wanted it to be, but that doesn't mean that God wanted it to be interpreted
literally--for all we know the lesson could be "don't believe everything
you read in a book".

> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

mel wrote:

>>One thing he came up with is that the Hebrew can be interpreted to mean
> that Adam was created separately from other humans--he made a good case
> for this the details of which I can't recall now--and the whole thing
> makes more sense if that is the case.
>
> This isn't quite the revelation you make it out to be. Nor has it been
> lost
> in translation. Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. Cain killed
> Abel. Then Cain was cast out with a mark from God so nobody else would
> kill
> him. Then Cain took a wife from the land of Nod. The story doesn't go
> that God created Adam and Eve and that was it..... the story says that God
> created Adam first then Eve. The significance of Adam and Eve as briefly
> as possible is they were the first and the beginning of the lineage that
> makes
> up the entire bible. The old testament all the way up until the birth of
> Christ is a history of a single family line.

This is correct, but it is not the way that we are normally taught that
things went. That leaves the Land of Nod as a sticking point, and he finds
that it really isn't because the Nodians were in some way a different kind
of human from Adam and Eve--what the difference is is not clear, but the
wording seems to indicate that there is some kind of difference.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

mel wrote:

>>More evidence exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
> universe just exploded into existence one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
> causative agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
> "cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
> then become unstable with no causative agent to have made it so.
>
> Once upon a time there was nothing....nothing.... nope not even that..
> nothing. And then there was just a bit... just a little dusty bit. Just
> floating around and then there were more bits.. you know.. just attracting
> and then compacting and compacting and swirling around and all of a sudden
> BOOM! it blew up and went all over the place and it was spinning around
> and hot.. very hot.. ewww can't touch it yet... and um.. had to wait for
> it to cool down a bit just a bit more and then it gets a little bit
> oozy... just a bit oozy on top and um a wiggle... we have a wiggle... then
> more wiggling and as it's wiggling..um.... fins, scales and it grows a
> tail.... and it's swimming around and as it's swimming around one day it
> goes," I think I'll go for a walk." And it grew these legs and the tail
> fell off and it went running around happily and then it grew hair and
> another tail... longer this time and it climbed up in trees for a bit and
> then the tail fell off and shaved and then.... it became an
> evolutionist.....
>
> It cracks me up to hear people claim to be too "intelligent" to believe in
> God.

It cracks me up that anyone whose understanding of the scientific view of
the origins of the universe and of terrestrial species is as pitiful as
yours seems to be has the chutzpah to criticize the intelligence of others.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

mel wrote:

>>This is correct, but it is not the way that we are normally taught that
> things went. That leaves the Land of Nod as a sticking point, and he
> finds that it really isn't because the Nodians were in some way a
> different kind of human from Adam and Eve--what the difference is is not
> clear, but the wording seems to indicate that there is some kind of
> difference.
>
> Nod quite literally means "wandering". The land of Nod was the region
> east of Eden where the people were a nomadic wandering group not having an
> "Eden"
> of their own they could call home. That is the significant difference
> between these people and Adam and Eve in relation to the story of the
> Bible. Quite possibly other differences existed that have something to do
> with
> evolution. Maybe not. The important thing is that Adam was the first
> "man"
> as we know man.

Or Adam was the first of a special kind of man. If the lifespans of the
early descendants of Adam are to be believed then he and his descendants
were not quite like "we know man".

> From there the story begins... the rest is just a
> diversion.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

mel wrote:

>>Or Adam was the first of a special kind of man. If the lifespans of the
> early descendants of Adam are to be believed then he and his descendants
> were not quite like "we know man".
>
> That's a good point. In Genesis 6 God said his spirit wouldn't dwell in
> man
> forever because he was corrupt. He placed a cap on longevity of 120
> years. Noah and his descendents still lived for many years afterwards but
> the life span of man grew shorter soon afterwards.

And the SF fan in me has me noticing that this is a reasonably way for a
primitive person with no real comprehension of genetics to interpret an
explanation of dilution of hereditary characteristics by interbreeding with
a population that lacks those characteristics.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
> >
> >> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
> >> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
> >
> >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
> >Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.
> >
> >I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.
>
> Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
> *born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator.
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was
a Protestant concept, like Creationism.

--

FF

>I was thinking sheep, but many cultures liked to offer humans, some in the
middle east, some in the Americas, some in Polynesia. I bet there were
others.

>Perhaps not burnt, but certainly sacrificed.

>What I don't get is why a god would like that.

In the case of Noah, the burnt offerings of clean animals and birds was
pleasing to God for a specific reason. Noah had just gotten off a boat with
a limited amount of animals. By being willing to offer to God that which
came from his limited supply he was making the statement that he trusted in
God to provide.

This same God speaks of the other practices you speak of by other cultures
rather specifically in

Deuteronomy 12:

31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in
worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD
hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to
their gods.
32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

"Buddhism without beliefs" Stephen Batchelor explains it all very well.

John Emmons

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
>
> Depends on your school, and a _lot_ on how you regard "divinity". I'd
> see a bodhisattva as divine, but definitely not a god. I think this is
> a generally held view across all schools of Buddhism (for
> bodhisattva), but there are lots of entities in (for instance) the
> Tibet demonology whose place I really don't understand.
>
> >Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.
>
> Very much so. I'd regard any school that did that as simply no longer
> Buddhist - they're really just not getting it.
>
> --
> Smert' spamionam

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:56:08 -0700, charlie b <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I've never heard the phrase God fearing Buddhist.

It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.

If you're a Tibetan Buddhist (which is like comparing voodoo to
catholicism), then the distinction between gods/demons is moot, but
you ought to be well afraid of _those_ critters!

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:47:25 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Matt Silberstein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:36:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
>> [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) in
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
>> >> >> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
>> >> >Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.
>> >> >
>> >> >I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.
>> >>
>> >> Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
>> >> *born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator.
>> >> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>> >
>> >You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
>> >heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was
>> >a Protestant concept, like Creationism.
>>
>> http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm
>>
>> _Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_
>>
>> I don't care what your religious views are, read this sermon. You can
>> learn much about early American Puritans. More to the point, just
>> imagine being in his church one Sunday when he preached this sermon.
>> "God-Fearing" is mild, absolutely terrified is a more apt description.
>[snip]
>

Depends upon how you see God, as an angry judge, or as a compassionate
Savior. Martin Luther struggled through the same thing, seeing Christ as a
judge ready to meet out eternal punishment for any single sin left
un-repented and un-compensated. Doesn't appear that the 16'th century
Puritans moved much from medieval Catholocism. His whole view changed
when he read Romans and "... the just shall live by faith..."


The word "fear" in the scripture is more appropriately translated as
"respect and honor". Having visited the link you posted, the sermon in
question was certainly all law, and no gospel (good news); trying to scare
people into faith or confession is counter-productive and futile.
Certainly the law portion of the sermon is not far from correct, the
unbeliever has nothing to look forward to in the afterlife, the problem is
that the same sermon does not present the gospel message in clear, concise
terms, i.e. that Christ did all the work of salvation for the whole world,
one need do nothing but believe that promise (and even that faith is a
gift) and appropriate the promise for one's self.


>Yes, I can just imagine a bunch of us 'howler monkeys' standing up
>halfway through his sermon and yelling "EVIDENCE! Where's the evidence?"
>
>:)

More evidene exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
universe just exploded into existance one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
causitive agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
"cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
then become unstable with no causitive agent to have made it so.

>
> - Felix

Addendum:
>
> I was listening to the World Report with Bill Lehrer today and they
> reported that 11 million children are on prescription drugs for
> hyperactivity and depression. It has suddenly occurred to leading
> psychologists that by drugging the problems, the children never learn
> to manage them and the problems just become more deeply imbedded and
> more complex. On the other hand, parents don't have time to talk
> through their children's problems, or get them better help and public
> schools don't have the money, resources or authority to help the
> children, either. So, they conclude, if 11 million children are
> drugged to the point of becoming inescapably dependent on prescribed
> drugs for their entire lives, it's just good economics for the drug
> companies.
>
> Just another power greater than ourselves to whom we are expected to
> conceed our will and children being sacrificed to prove our faith in
> the power and powers, corporate entities and lesser gods of our modern
> world.
>
>
> JTG 11/26/04
>
Very well put and so true. I find it very interesting that every time a
hyperactive child I know is put on a clean diet (no junk food, no artificial
ingredients) they calm down and are able to focus again. As an added
benefit, they also stay healthier when their peers are sick.

Newbie troll enjoying the group...
MJ
[email protected] :þ (did I do that right???)

>Prometheus wrote and asked a lifetime of questions to answer.....

>it's that I don't believe in religious rhetoric; and that's an awful big
difference in
my opinion.

Funny thing is neither did Jesus but before you can understand where he was
coming from you have to understand what happened with the relationship
between man and God first...

>Let us accept that the Bible is the literal word of God Almighty for a
moment- which version should we turn to? There is the Torah of the Jews
(Old Testament), The King James Version, the NIV and several -Greek
translations, just to name a (very) few.

First, in order to accept that the Bible is the word of God you have to give
him sovereignty over it. You state that you are willing to concede to the
existence of "some ultimate force in the universe that is beyond my
comprehension." But then you attempt to comprehend the plausibility of him
being able to keep his message intact through the ages.

> Does the true Bible include the Nag Hammadi manuscripts or the Apocrypha?
Were the Gnostic verses removed during the council of Nice the words of God
removed by politicians, or did Constantine have God's ear when he convened
that council? All throughout history, this book has been translated,
edited, added to and truncated.

This is where my statement of being "too intelligent" to believe comes in.
Yes.. you are right. These things did happen and.... will continue to
happen.. but...knowing about them doesn't automatically discount the
validity of the end product.

>So, why exactly is it that we should open up our [your translation here]
Bible to learn the Truths of the Ages?

insert Holy

>Is it because it is actually the Word of God,

Yes

>or is it because it makes you feel comfortable to think that everything has
already been figured out and decided for you?

The decision is still left up to us.

>It's a good starting point for thought, but I just don't see how it can be
so rigidly adhered to by so many.

lol... I'm not laughing at you.. I'm laughing at my struggle here to keep
this short. Let's just say that you mentioned the problem earlier. What as
been so rigidly adhered to throughout history isn't "the word of God" but
various agendas of men.

>That's what I'm too intelligent for- not for God. There's plenty of
evidence that indicates evolution; we don't have it all figured out yet, but
someday we might. Why close your eyes to science, and choose to believe
blindly?

You shouldn't. Nor should you make the leap to assume that evidence of
evolution proves or disproves anything. Within that same evidence there is
evidence of divine design. More and more members of the scientific
community are beginning to acknowledge that DNA is a deliberate design. The
belief is forming that all species have been pre-engineered. Pre-engineered
to change to suit their environment. This is a more plausible explanation
for evolution than mere chance. We may have very well stumbled onto proof
that God exists. Wouldn't that be interesting?

If you read the Bible without the objective to find quarrel with it one
thing becomes apparent. There is a series of move vs. countermove
throughout history. God creates man. (move) Satan convinces man to sin
against God.(countermove) God institutes sacrifices.(move) We find out
later God didn't enjoy sacrifices so why'd he do it? It shows that there
are consequences for sin.. but man didn't get it. Eventually man wound up
in such an ugly state that (countermove) God rose up Noah (move) and wiped
out man. And so the story goes..... until the ultimate move by God to end
the effectiveness of Satan's countermoves.... Christ.

But it doesn't end there. The battle still rages on and you have things
happen that you speak of.... reasons to question the validity of God's word.
Adding books that are unnecessary.. omitting books that are unnecessary.
Proof of evolution... proof of design.

>My theory, not from the Bible- just a guess- is that if there is a paternal
God entity that watches over us all, he must feel a rush of pride whenever
he sees us learn and advance our own understanding of existence. As a
father, would he rather see his children learn and grow (even in the face of
mistakes) or reach a state of semi-consciousness and then just lay there
drooling and patting one another on the back, waiting to placidly to get to
heaven?

Actually... you have effectively just explained the necessity for God's
word. He IS a paternal father and it IS biblical. He does feel a rush of
pride whenever he sees us learn and advance our own understanding. He
allows his children to learn and grow (even in the face of mistakes) which
happens to explain alot of the mistakes that are made by man.... would you
as a father turn your children out into the world without any instruction?
And if you in your limited wisdom, that only a man can possess, wouldn't do
your children that way.... ask yourself how a being capable of creating man
would do any less? If you have children think of how your instructions to
them come back all polluted by outside influences.... when that happens what
do you do? Give up? Or are you constantly diligent in removing the garbage
and restructuring the truth? The main difference between God's word and our
instructions to our children.... Satan doesn't have the power to change the
truth through man.

>If you were created, I doubt you were created to be a simple playback
device for scripture. Challenge, learn and explore yourself and your world-
don't just let a bunch of nimwits in black frocks tell you how to live your
life. Only death lies down that road.

This is a beautiful summary of Jesus' ministry. Verbatim. I'm going to
challenge you with this statement. You have an excellent grasp of the
truth. Read the story per Jesus' advice.... for yourself.. not polluted
with the misconceptions of man throughout history. Jesus said, "seek and
you shall find." Of course the assumption is made that you shall seek a
reason to believe. Not a reason to doubt. If you choose the latter you
will find that too.......

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Silberstein <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:36:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
> [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) in
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
> >> >> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
> >> >Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.
> >> >
> >> >I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.
> >>
> >> Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
> >> *born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator.
> >> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> >
> >You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
> >heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was
> >a Protestant concept, like Creationism.
>
> http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm
>
> _Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_
>
> I don't care what your religious views are, read this sermon. You can
> learn much about early American Puritans. More to the point, just
> imagine being in his church one Sunday when he preached this sermon.
> "God-Fearing" is mild, absolutely terrified is a more apt description.
[snip]

Yes, I can just imagine a bunch of us 'howler monkeys' standing up
halfway through his sermon and yelling "EVIDENCE! Where's the evidence?"

:)

- Felix

>More evidence exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
universe just exploded into existence one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
causative agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
"cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
then become unstable with no causative agent to have made it so.

Once upon a time there was nothing....nothing.... nope not even that..
nothing. And then there was just a bit... just a little dusty bit. Just
floating around and then there were more bits.. you know.. just attracting
and then compacting and compacting and swirling around and all of a sudden
BOOM! it blew up and went all over the place and it was spinning around and
hot.. very hot.. ewww can't touch it yet... and um.. had to wait for it to
cool down a bit just a bit more and then it gets a little bit oozy... just a
bit oozy on top and um a wiggle... we have a wiggle... then more wiggling
and as it's wiggling..um.... fins, scales and it grows a tail.... and it's
swimming around and as it's swimming around one day it goes," I think I'll
go for a walk." And it grew these legs and the tail fell off and it went
running around happily and then it grew hair and another tail... longer this
time and it climbed up in trees for a bit and then the tail fell off and
shaved and then.... it became an evolutionist.....

It cracks me up to hear people claim to be too "intelligent" to believe in
God.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:

> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.

I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.

I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:29:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Orthodox Christianity differs from what you correctly describe all of
> the
> other of the world's religions' statement, "You must live a good life
> and do good to be found worthy" by saying, "you must live a perfect life
> to be found worthy, but you are unable to do so, therefore, it has
> already done for you."

That's the gist of much Zen. One already has Buddha-nature; to strive for
it is to lose it. No Hindus have chimed in yet--what's going on there?

Is it on topic to have a discussion where one of the important figures was
a carpenter and another started out under a tree? Zen even offers uncarved
blocks.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:32:45 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

> What is the sound of one hand carving?

"OW! Oh, sh*t."

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:24:06 +0000, Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:36:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
> [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) in
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be,
>>> >> it just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
>>> >
>>> >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of
>>> >divinities. Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly
>>> >pointed out.
>>> >
>>> >I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.
>>>
>>> Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
>>> *born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator. Aut inveniam
>>> viam aut faciam
>>
>>You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
>>heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was a
>>Protestant concept, like Creationism.
>
> http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm
>
> _Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_
>
> I don't care what your religious views are, read this sermon. You can
> learn much about early American Puritans. More to the point, just imagine
> being in his church one Sunday when he preached this sermon. "God-Fearing"
> is mild, absolutely terrified is a more apt description.
>
>
> " There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any
> moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have
> no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. -- He is not
> only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it.
> Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to
> subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made
> himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God.
> There is no fortress that is any defence from the power of God."
>
> and
>
> " They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands
> in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power at any
> moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an
> infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that
> brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why cumbereth it the
> ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished
> over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and
> God's mere will, that holds it back."

Shoots-he-scores! *Big* points to Matt for going with Calvinism.
*There* you gotcher God-fearin' men. (And of course women, but to the
real god-fearers, they don't seem to matter as much.)

Southern Baptists do a pretty good job, too. Friend of mine was more or
less permanently scarred by some baptist preachers.

Interesting that religions have for so long sought pain and suffering as
something "pleasing" to gods. Sacrifice, disciplines, hairshirts, cords,
fear, and other strange-oid practices are somehow supposed to make gods
happy.

Oh -- and burning heretics. The smell of a burning heretic is somehow
pleasing to the gods.

Jeepers.

m

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:52:12 +0000, mel wrote:

>>It says in Genesis (aka The First Book of Moses), that the smell of
>>burning
> flesh is pleasing to G-d. This is perhaps the reason not only for the
> burning of heretics, but also for the prevalence of wars.
>
> You are so far out of line with this. What you refer to is the burnt
> offerings by Noah of clean animals and birds to God. In essence a BBQ.

*Again* we're wrapping back around to the BBQ thread.

I was thinking sheep, but many cultures liked to offer humans, some in the
middle east, some in the Americas, some in Polynesia. I bet there were
others.

Perhaps not burnt, but certainly sacrificed.

What I don't get is why a god would like that.

m

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:08:00 +0000, mel wrote:

>>I was thinking sheep, but many cultures liked to offer humans, some in
>>the
> middle east, some in the Americas, some in Polynesia. I bet there were
> others.
>
>>Perhaps not burnt, but certainly sacrificed.
>
>>What I don't get is why a god would like that.
>
> In the case of Noah, the burnt offerings of clean animals and birds was
> pleasing to God for a specific reason. Noah had just gotten off a boat
> with a limited amount of animals. By being willing to offer to God that
> which came from his limited supply he was making the statement that he
> trusted in God to provide.
>
> This same God speaks of the other practices you speak of by other cultures
> rather specifically in
>
> Deuteronomy 12:
>
> 31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in
> worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD
> hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices
> to their gods.
> 32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from
> it.

I think you're missing my point. Why would people think it possible that
a god would need such things? Sure, the god of Israel condemned the Ba'al
worshippers, but he came back at the Israelites with a whole bunch of
strange things of his own: dietary restrictions, killing even to the last
goat of your enemies, things like that.

On a scale somewhat smaller than human sacrifice, it's still quite common
among Christian religions to propose that god requires suffering. My
point is, why? He's a big guy, why does he need suffering?

I just don't get it, and I've pondered it quite a bit.

Seems to me that he wouldn't need fear to encourage good behavior. All
he'd pretty much have to do is come down here and talk to us a bit.
Rewards are far better for changing behavior than punishments.

m

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

> Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
> > >
> > >> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
> > >> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
> > >
> > >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
> > >Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.
> > >
> > >I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.
> >
> > Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
> > *born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator.
> > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>
> You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
> heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was
> a Protestant concept, like Creationism.

I thought it was Jewish. The G-d fearers were non Jews who attended
Synagogue and followed the non-ceremonial laws of the Jews.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <[email protected]>,
Marc Carter <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:24:06 +0000, Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:36:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
> > [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) in
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:<[email protected]>...
> >>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be,
> >>> >> it just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
> >>> >
> >>> >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of
> >>> >divinities. Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly
> >>> >pointed out.
> >>> >
> >>> >I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.
> >>>
> >>> Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
> >>> *born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator. Aut inveniam
> >>> viam aut faciam
> >>
> >>You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
> >>heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was a
> >>Protestant concept, like Creationism.
> >
> > http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm
> >
> > _Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_
> >
> > I don't care what your religious views are, read this sermon. You can
> > learn much about early American Puritans. More to the point, just imagine
> > being in his church one Sunday when he preached this sermon. "God-Fearing"
> > is mild, absolutely terrified is a more apt description.
> >
> >
> > " There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any
> > moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have
> > no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. -- He is not
> > only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it.
> > Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to
> > subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made
> > himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God.
> > There is no fortress that is any defence from the power of God."
> >
> > and
> >
> > " They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands
> > in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power at any
> > moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an
> > infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that
> > brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why cumbereth it the
> > ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished
> > over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and
> > God's mere will, that holds it back."
>
> Shoots-he-scores! *Big* points to Matt for going with Calvinism.
> *There* you gotcher God-fearin' men. (And of course women, but to the
> real god-fearers, they don't seem to matter as much.)
>
> Southern Baptists do a pretty good job, too. Friend of mine was more or
> less permanently scarred by some baptist preachers.
>
> Interesting that religions have for so long sought pain and suffering as
> something "pleasing" to gods. Sacrifice, disciplines, hairshirts, cords,
> fear, and other strange-oid practices are somehow supposed to make gods
> happy.
>
> Oh -- and burning heretics. The smell of a burning heretic is somehow
> pleasing to the gods.
>
> Jeepers.
>
> m

It says in Genesis (aka The First Book of Moses), that the smell of
burning flesh is pleasing to G-d. This is perhaps the reason not only
for the burning of heretics, but also for the prevalence of wars.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <[email protected]>,
Marc Carter <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:52:12 +0000, mel wrote:
>
> >>It says in Genesis (aka The First Book of Moses), that the smell of
> >>burning
> > flesh is pleasing to G-d. This is perhaps the reason not only for the
> > burning of heretics, but also for the prevalence of wars.
> >
> > You are so far out of line with this. What you refer to is the burnt
> > offerings by Noah of clean animals and birds to God. In essence a BBQ.
>
> *Again* we're wrapping back around to the BBQ thread.
>
> I was thinking sheep, but many cultures liked to offer humans, some in the
> middle east, some in the Americas, some in Polynesia. I bet there were
> others.
>
> Perhaps not burnt, but certainly sacrificed.
>
> What I don't get is why a god would like that.
>
> m

His priest got to eat the meat.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Sighhhhhh........

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.

Depends on your school, and a _lot_ on how you regard "divinity". I'd
see a bodhisattva as divine, but definitely not a god. I think this is
a generally held view across all schools of Buddhism (for
bodhisattva), but there are lots of entities in (for instance) the
Tibet demonology whose place I really don't understand.

>Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.

Very much so. I'd regard any school that did that as simply no longer
Buddhist - they're really just not getting it.

--
Smert' spamionam

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:24:06 +0000 (UTC), Matt Silberstein
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:36:03 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
>[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) in
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:47:36 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> It's not impossible. Buddhism has a concept of what a god would be, it
>>> >> just doesn't believe there are any filling the slot.
>>> >
>>> >I'm not up on "religious" Buddhism, but there are a bunch of divinities.
>>> >Though the Buddha is usually not deified, as was correctly pointed out.
>>> >
>>> >I love the notion of a born-again Buddhist. Priceless.
>>>
>>> Hesse had a concept of Guatama that was a little like that- he was
>>> *born again* as it were when he became a ferry operator.
>>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>>
>>You don't hear about God-Fearing Catholics either. Actually, I never
>>heard of God-Fearing Muslims or Jews. I thought 'God-Fearing' was
>>a Protestant concept, like Creationism.
>
>http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm
>
>_Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_
>
>I don't care what your religious views are, read this sermon. You can
>learn much about early American Puritans. More to the point, just
>imagine being in his church one Sunday when he preached this sermon.
>"God-Fearing" is mild, absolutely terrified is a more apt description.
>
>
>" There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any
>moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest
>have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. --
>He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most
>easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of
>difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself,
>and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is
>not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defence from the
>power of God."
>
>and
>
>" They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never
>stands in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power
>at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls
>aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of
>the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why
>cumbereth it the ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is
>every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the
>hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds it back."

"But he Looooooves you"
-George Carlin
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:24:12 +0000 (UTC),
mel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>My memory may be faulty, but wasn't there a little episode with Abraham and
> his son Isaac? I don't remember Abraham feeling that God's request was in
> any way rare or unusual.
>
> Genesis 22. All we know is this..... God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
> Abraham was prepared to do what God asked of him. God stopped him and
> offered a substitute. We do not know how Abraham felt. God provided a ram
> as a substitute and many believe this is a prophetic allegory of God
> providing Jesus, "The Lamb of God", as a substitute for ourselves.
>
> This is taught as if God said, "Hey Abraham! Go kill your son for me."
>
> "Uh.. Ok."
>
> No.... I suspect that since God rewarded Abraham greatly for showing his
> willingness it was because he struggled greatly with it.

Quite frankly, if anyone demanded I kill my son, I'd tell him to sod off.

--
Aaron Clausen
[email protected]

"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields

In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> More evidene exists for that than the faith required to believe that the
>universe just exploded into existance one afternoon at 3 o'clock with no
>causitive agent to have caused such an event nor any reason why that
>"cosmic egg" could have been stable for eternity up until that afternoon,
>then become unstable with no causitive agent to have made it so.

This reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw some years back:

"I believe in the Big Bang Theory.
God said 'Let there be light'
and BANG! it happened."

FWIW, I'm one who does not subscribe to the idea that the Bible, and the
theory of evolution, are necessarily mutually exclusive. Genesis is not, and
was not intended to be, a science textbook. It states clearly that God created
the universe and everything in it, but doesn't really go into any details of
*how* he chose to go about it. There's no logical contradiction inherent in
supposing that he chose to allow species to form via Darwinian evolution.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.