ccc@cwruecmp.UUCP (Case Computer Club) (11/05/83)
I have only recently resubscribed to net.religion, and our news is
is only kept for 2-3 weeks, so hit 'q' if I am restating the obvious.
Warning: I have spent the last ~2-3 hrs. reading net.religion and I
will be commenting and responding to many different and various
articles. [Warning: temperatures may exceed tolerances on occasion]
Regarding Sexism in the Bible:
I see the problem, but I tend to think it is a problem more with
current English usage than with the text. Let's face it. English
doesn't have an indefinite article. For hundreds of years, "he",
"his", etc. have been used as unspecific personal pronouns. In
documents as recently written as the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution (both of which were written by educated people, I'm
sure you'll agree), "men" meant "members of the species homo sapiens
sapiens". In fact, not very long ago (historically), the adjective
"manly" was a compliment to both men and women, not meaning "macho",
but meaning "human" or "well-rounded". If you are skeptical, look at
the Greek (where the word translated "Man" is a collective noun) or
even the King James Bible (where, again, "Man" is capitalized,
signifying that it was equivilent to "Mankind").
It seems that only comparatively recently has there been any great
amount of misinterpretation on this point. For the record, I support
the ERA fully, but only so that it will reduce the possibility of
misinterpretation. The Constitution is remarkably well-worded.
So is the Bible. As to ignorant/outright stupid remarks to the effect
of "the woman's place is in the home" and the like, I only have one
remark: read the book of Judith or most of the rest of both the Old
and New Testaments. Equal rights for ***everyone*** have a very old
and established tradition going back thousands of years.
Regarding "Creationism" vs. "Evolution":
Arghh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I get the impression that most of this newsgroup is missing what seems
to me to be an obvious fact: I can think of no current scientific
hypotheses regarding the creation and history of the universe that are
inconsistent with the concept of Creation as an intentional act by
YHVH (Allah, Siva, the Goddess, etc.). First of all, I consider
"chance' to be a null concept. Unpredictability I understand. Random
distributions I understand. Brownian Motion I understand. "Chance" I
do not. As I understand it, even quantum theories have no framework
for "chance" events. Unpredictable or undeterminable, yes, but
completely random, no (If I happen to be wrong, please correct me, but
*politely*; I'm a Computer Eng. major, not a Physics major).
Will someone please explain how Genesis (to choose a well known
account of Creation) is inconsistent with modern cosmology/cosmogony?
Before you start quoting chapter and verse, read the next section.
Regarding Scripture as History:
Those who regard the Bible as an exact recounting of historical events
("Christians" are most guilty of this, it seems) are both missing the
purpose(s) and the significance(s) of the Books. If you believe that
the Word of God is solely and completely contained in the text of the
Bible (Fundamentalists are going to complain about this...), you have
a much lower opinion of YHVH, the Bible itself, and the Universe
around you than I do. Likewise, if you believe that wisdom of any
sort can be exactly expressed in any language, much less English, you
are less intelligent than one would hope.
Any sacred document is the product of a COMMUNITY. One cannot hope to
understand it except in the framework of that community. It is also
an attempt by the members of that community to record an experience
that cannot be described in words. I have problem describing an
insight about an elegant algorithm, much less a spiritually
enlightening experience (which I have had, though I cannot describe
what happened). The Bible is not a history book; it is much, much
more. To be blunt, "Give God some credit, guys..."
Regarding Fire & Brimstone (esp. when applied to Usenet):
Most people make their own Hell. You can punish and torture yourself
far better than anyone else. Also, consider this (not an original
idea, I'm afraid): Hell is God's last ditch attempt to allow you to
redeem yourself. If Hell won't change you, nothing will...
Regarding prosyletizing (ESPECIALLY ON THIS NETWORK):
Maybe the One True Way isn't quite what you thought. If someone is
ready to convert to your particular sect, he probably will without too
much effort on your part.
Regarding Televangeli$t$:
Are you telling me that The Lord God Almighty, Omnipotent Creator, and
All-Father needs or even *wants* (if such a concept is appropraite for
a Deity) your money (what does He need it for, may I ask?), your
defense of inappropriate values based on homocentric ignorance, or
most of the rest of what you do in His Name? If I thought that evil
could be personified (which I don't) he would be a TV evangelist...
I'm running out of caffeine (my Coke can is empty). I also have
useful work to do (what a concept!). I may well continue later. If
you send flames, either to me or posted, be prepared for response in
kind. If necessary, I will quote in Aramaic... In short, be prepared
to document your flames.
As I dive headfirst into this
newsgroup,
Clayton
...!decvax!cwruecmp!ccc
soon to be ...decvax!cwruecmp!elwell
ccc.Case@Rand-Relay
etc., etc.