pooh@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (soggy and hard to light) (12/28/87)
In article <1340@vaxwaller.UUCP> chip@vaxwaller.UUCP (Chip Kozy) writes: > > Although Christmas may have had its' roots in religion, it has >become on of the most nonsecular holidays celebrated. Sorry, Chip, but that won't wash. Christmas IS a religious holiday, through and through. All the traditions that you feel have become "nonreligious" because they're not in a church are still customs that not everyone follows. I grew up Jewish, for example. Wreaths on the door? Never heard of 'em. Christmas tree? Nope. Carols? Of any sort? No. We sung some Hanukkah songs, sure, but never went around door to door singing them to anyone else, or sang them at office parties, or heard them on the radio. Gift giving? First day of Hanukkah, although I suspect that custom was borrowed from Christians to keep us kids from feeling too bad. Santa Claus? Who's that? No stockings, red and green were just two other colors, no mistletoe (I never saw any until I was in college), and no one cared if it snowed on Hanukkah. No Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. We never sent out Christmas (OR Hanukkah) cards. You see, these are still strange customs to me, and certainly not SECULAR ones. I have been exposed to them all my life, but they have never been customs of ALL Americans, like Thanksgiving and turkey. They are so prevalent, unfortunately, that you THINK they have become accepted by everyone and are hence nondenominational. They aren't. Food for thought, Pooh pooh@oddjob.uchicago.edu Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. -- George Bernard Shaw
wlinden@unirot.UUCP (Will Linden) (12/30/87)
In article <14173@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> pooh@oddjob.uchicago.edu.UUCP (soggy and hard to light) writes: >one cared if it snowed on Hanukkah. No Rudolph the Red-Nosed >Reindeer. We never sent out Christmas (OR Hanukkah) cards. > >You see, these are still strange customs to me, and certainly >not SECULAR ones. I have been exposed to them all my life, >but they have never been customs of ALL Americans, like Thanksgiving >and turkey. Your argument assumes that because something is "not the custom of ALL Americans" THEREFORE it is "religious". That means that the May "Memorial Day", for instance, is "religious" since some states observe Confederate Memorial Day instead. THAT won't wash. -- Will Linden cmcl2!rutgers!unirot!wlinden {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri!dasys1!wlinden {sun,well,ihnp4,amdahl}!hoptoad!dasys1!wlinden {cucard,bc-cis}!dasys1!wlinden
dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) (12/31/87)
Take the example of Christna [sic?] beliefs. Here was a demi-god born 1200
years before the Christian Jesus of a virgin mother who performed miracles
and was eventually put to death on a cross. Sound familiar? There have been
16 different sons-of-God, most of them males born of virgins. But there is
no secular evidence that Jesus ever existed. The Roman's never noted his
presence. Winter has been a time of parties dating far back when tribes,
seeing the sun grow ever lower in the heavens (pardon by use of that word),
would have dances and prayers hoping for it to return. Of course it always
did.
Even the Bible contradicts itself not only about the time the alleged "Jesus"
was born, but also about his name, and the fact that he was born of a virgin.
You want the exact citations? - I'll quote them for you. But all this is
irrelevant to those persons who view the world through rose-colored glasses.
If you want to celebrate X-mas as religious - fine. But don't interfere with
my celebration. X-mas is a product of man, made by man, celebrated by man,
and so it will continue.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
!{ihnp4!hpda!seismo!utah-cs!uplherc}!sp7040!dale
"The agony of my soul found vent in one loud,
long and final scream of despair." --POErichard@a.cs.okstate.edu (Richard Brown) (01/02/88)
in article <207@sp7040.UUCP>, dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) says: > Xref: okstate soc.singles:16407 talk.religion.misc:4866 alt.flame:408 > > Even the Bible contradicts itself not only about the time the alleged "Jesus" > was born, but also about his name, and the fact that he was born of a virgin. > You want the exact citations? - I'll quote them for you. But all this is > irrelevant to those persons who view the world through rose-colored glasses. . Yes, I would be interested in hearing your citations- in context, please. "a text out of context is a pretext". . 'rose colored glasses'? let's see... "If the world has hated Me how much more will it hate you?" "Ye are not of this world, else the world would have loved you..." etc. Sorry, I don't have my Bible with me right now, so I can't give you the exact citations. The early Christians knew they would be abused, tortured, imprisoned, and killed. But they said they considered that small loss compared to a life in the Spirit of Christ and the hope of Eternal Life to come. If that sounds like "rose-colored glasses" to you, then more power to ya'! : Peace -- richard -- ---- MAY THE FARCE BE WITH YOU ---- Richard Brown -- Oklahoma State University -- Computer Science UUCP: {cbosgd, ihnp4, rutgers}!okstate!richard ARPA: richard@A.CS.OKSTATE.EDU
markv@uoregon.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) (01/03/88)
In article <207@sp7040.UUCP> dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) writes: > >Take the example of Christna [sic?] beliefs. Here was a demi-god born 1200 >years before the Christian Jesus of a virgin mother who performed miracles >and was eventually put to death on a cross. Sound familiar? There have been >16 different sons-of-God, most of them males born of virgins. But there is >no secular evidence that Jesus ever existed. The Roman's never noted his >presence. Winter has been a time of parties dating far back when tribes, >seeing the sun grow ever lower in the heavens (pardon by use of that word), >would have dances and prayers hoping for it to return. Of course it always >did. Your arguments, if designed to convince Christians that they are living a lie, are highly ineffective. After all, religious convictions are matters of FAITH, not of "secular evidence". How incredibly poor in FAITH is a man who will only believe what is SHOWN to him, what is EXPLAINED to him, what cannot be denied. If one adopts a religion, one is forced to accept the fact that there are things which cannot be explained or proved. It makes for a much simpler lifestyle, and for some, one that is potentially more rich. >Even the Bible contradicts itself not only about the time the alleged "Jesus" >was born, but also about his name, and the fact that he was born of a virgin. >You want the exact citations? - I'll quote them for you. But all this is >irrelevant to those persons who view the world through rose-colored glasses. >If you want to celebrate X-mas as religious - fine. But don't interfere with >my celebration. X-mas is a product of man, made by man, celebrated by man, >and so it will continue. It is amazing to me how religious intolerance continues. From my point of view (a not particularly good Roman Catholic) there is no doubt that Jesus was the real son of God. What that means? I have no idea. It is nice that you can find exact passages in the Bible to corroborate your viewpoint. The Bible has been used by many different (and many very evil) people as justification for actions. I guess the rule is, you can read anything you damn well please into the Bible. But then, that "don't make it so" either. >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >!{ihnp4!hpda!seismo!utah-cs!uplherc}!sp7040!dale > "The agony of my soul found vent in one loud, > long and final scream of despair." --POE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This really brightened my Christmas! I am not a particularly religious person. I disagree with many of the doctrines taught in my own church. I consider myself a Christian, but that word has so many negative Bible-thumping judgemental associations with it, that I rarely use it. What I am constantly amazed at is the amazing intolerance of people. Dammit, let people be what they wish to be! Some people will worship Christ's birth, as their Savior. Fine! Some will use it as an excuse to give one another gifts, be with family, get drunk a little, and take a couple of days of from the grind. Fine as well! Jews have a separate holiday which is closely spaced with Christmas, let them do whatever they do to celebrate. Let them do it openly, and don't get all bent out of shape. If you are like me, you try to appreciate both sides of Christmas (secular and religious) at least a little bit. When both sides are really there, then Christmas is meaningful for me. mark vandewettering, into the thick of philosophical discussion, in the new year
hdunne@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu (|-|ugh) (01/03/88)
In article <1393@uoregon.UUCP> markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) writes: } How incredibly poor in FAITH is a man who will only believe what } is SHOWN to him, what is EXPLAINED to him, what cannot be } denied. "Faith" is a cop-out. Belief in the supernatural is an admission of ignorance. People used to "explain" lightning, rain and other natural phenomena by believing in lightning gods, rain gods etc. Lumping your ignorance together and calling it "god" may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't explain anything and doesn't bring you any real benefits. } From my point of view (a not particularly good Roman Catholic) there } is no doubt that Jesus was the real son of God. What that } means? I have no idea. Then what's the point of believing it? What would you say to someone who said, "I firmly believe as part of my religion that colorless green rocks sleep furiously." } The Bible has been used by many different (and many very evil) people } as justification for actions. I guess the rule is, you can read } anything you damn well please into the Bible. But then, that } "don't make it so" either. Isn't the bible supposed to be the word of God? Looks like he didn't do a very good job of making himself clear. Perhaps he should have glanced over "Elements of Style" before starting. } Dammit, let people be what they wish to be! A noble sentiment. However, it's invariably the religionists who violate it! I am perfectly willing to let people believe any religion they like, even when it's based on demonstrably false myths and is irrational to the core. I don't shove atheism down anyone's throat. It's when they start shoving religion down mine that I tend to get "intolerant"! Hugh Dunne | ...{cmcl2,ihnp4,seismo!noao}!arizona!amethyst!hdunne Dept. of Math. | Phone: | {amethyst.ma.arizona.edu} Univ. of Arizona | +1 602 621 4766 | hdunne@{ arizrvax.bitnet } Tucson AZ 85721 | +1 602 621 6893 | { rvax.ccit.arizona.edu }
matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (D 1 4 U 2 C) (01/04/88)
In article <1393@uoregon.UUCP> markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) writes:
) How incredibly poor in FAITH is a man who will only believe what
) is SHOWN to him, what is EXPLAINED to him, what cannot be
) denied. If one adopts a religion, one is forced to accept the
) fact that there are things which cannot be explained or proved.
) It makes for a much simpler lifestyle, and for some, one that is
) potentially more rich.
Way to go, Mark. Spoken like a true neo-conservative. Accept
authority, don't ask questions, and wear ignorance like a badge!
(Oh, and please don't just write back to say how liberal you think
you are. Anyone who can voluntarily and so thoroughly shut off the
brain that he believes his creator gave him should not engage in
arguments.)
Matt
My favorite form of government? Participatory plutocracy!farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/04/88)
In article <1393@uoregon.UUCP> markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) writes: > If one adopts a religion, one is forced to accept the > fact that there are things which cannot be explained or proved. > It makes for a much simpler lifestyle, and for some, one that is > potentially more rich. 'Forced'? I know of at least two religions whose tenets demand that their believers NOT accept things which cannot be proved. This does not necessarily mean that they can be explained - part of the assumptions one must make when thinking in language, as we do, is that there are going to be phenomena which cannot be explained in that language. Let me assure you that my whole religious philosophy, in which I believe deeply and with as much assurance as any born-again Christian I've ever met, is one to which I have come as a result of direct and personal experience, NOT one which I take on faith. To be sure, it isn't a Christian religion, but why should it have to be? -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
markxx@garnet.berkeley.edu (,,,,MG59) (01/05/88)
In article <207@sp7040.UUCP> dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) writes: > >Take the example of Christna [sic?] beliefs. Here was a demi-god born 1200 >years before the Christian Jesus of a virgin mother who performed miracles >and was eventually put to death on a cross. Sound familiar? There have been >16 different sons-of-God, most of them males born of virgins. But there is >no secular evidence that Jesus ever existed. The Roman's never noted his >presence. The Roman's never noted his presence??? There is no secular evidence that he ever existed??? Come on, have you ever read any history books??? There are many Roman accounts of the existance of a person named Jesus, and all the trouble that his band of followers was causing down in Palistine. But don't just take my word on it... I was able to hear a lecture by a historian from Oxford (England) on just this subject, and he said that the evidence that such a person existed is incontrovertable. Now, as he has a Ph.D. in history and is a fellow/professor at Oxford of long and distinguished standing, he may be totally wrong... But I doubt it. (And yes, just because someone said it and I qoute them doesn't make it true, but the evidence is there IF you open your eyes to look.) >Even the Bible contradicts itself not only about the time the alleged "Jesus" >was born, but also about his name, and the fact that he was born of a virgin. >You want the exact citations? - I'll quote them for you. Please do. I would be interested in seeing how you have taken the citations out of context. This is a common fallacy, commited as much by Christians (esp. fundamentalists), anti-Christians and Talk show hosts as anyone. What is the context? The context of a statement is important, and as anyone who has every been interviewed can tell you, without proper context anyone can be made to say anything. Which translation are you reading? Some translations (notably the King James) are well known for errors in translations and politically motivated mistranslation (ie. a word which means "to make fully wet" [in greek, baptizo] was transliterated into "baptise" so as not to offend the king, who's church sprinkled, rather than immersed.) Are you using 20th century concepts and assumptions to interpret writings from the 1st century? This is an important point, as the way text was written then was very different than the way text is written today. There are many different types of literature that were used, from narrative (often NOT linear) to poetry etc. These forms were also sometimes mixed, and the nuances of the words (in greek or aramaic) would aid the reader in understanding what the type of literature is. Obviously those nuances are lost in english. In addition, the expectations of the assumed reader was different than those that we, in post enlightenment late 20th century, have. Have you investigated thoses areas where there appears to be contradiction, gone back to the earliest manuscripts possible, and examined the words used to understand their meaning in that historical context, and then drawn conclusions about what, at that point, would appear, or not appear, to be a contradiction? This is important to do, IF you are a historian, and IF you want to take the time to understand what you are reading, not just attack it, OR blindly accept what others tell you it means. (This last points goes equally for Christians and non-Christians.) > But all this is >irrelevant to those persons who view the world through rose-colored glasses. Irrelevance depends upon what you are referring to. As those "facts" that you assert do not exist, this statement falls flat. However, it seems that there are things, like good scholarship and historical accuracy, which you are quite willing to ignore. Having a belief, and then setting out to "prove" it is hardly open minded. >!{ihnp4!hpda!seismo!utah-cs!uplherc}!sp7040!dale > "The agony of my soul found vent in one loud, > long and final scream of despair." --POE A historian specializing in the 1st century would probably do the same upon reading your posting. -Mark Ritchie
dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) (01/06/88)
>Your arguments, if designed to convince Christians that they are >living a lie, are highly ineffective. After all, religious >convictions are matters of FAITH, not of "secular evidence". >How incredibly poor in FAITH is a man who will only believe what >is SHOWN to him, what is EXPLAINED to him, what cannot be denied. I was not trying to convince anyone of anything (unlike many over zealous Christians). If I write an entire book then claim it to be the word of God, nothing you can say to me will convince me it's wrong. How can one possibly argue with the word of God? Tell me - what do you feel when you are confronted with areas of your religion that certainly show contradiction or weak claims? Are you afraid that to dispute it would crumble your utopia? The Bible says "prove all things, hold fast that which is good." Do you just smile, turn off your brain, form the 10,000-mile stare in your eyes and say, "Well, some day all these things will be explained." - Bubba, you've got a long wait in store for you - perhaps forever. >It is amazing to me how religious intolerance continues. From >my point of view (a not particularly good Roman Catholic) there >is no doubt that Jesus was the real son of God. What that >means? I have no idea. No doubt. First, I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion, of speech, etc. I am not one for knocking churches in general. I believe that if you belong to and live the principles of most any religion, you're probably going to be a pretty nice person. I would never want to remove any of those rights from anyone. But what about my rights and my freedoms? I don't believe in God. I don't try to force my opinions on anyone. Does that make me intrinsically evil? Am I going to "burn in hell" for being a bad disbeliever. Do you believe God created me this way to spend eternity in a scalding, painful hell? That's ludicrous. Can't you even consider the possibility for one small objective moment that perhaps God does not exist? If you are going to commit your life to something it's probably wise to examine it from all viewpoints, and often. If you can, then let's have a thought-provoking discussion. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- !{ihnp4!hpda!seismo!utah-cs!uplherc}!sp7040!dale "The agony of my soul found vent in one loud, long and final scream of despair." --POE
jst1@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Tomas) (01/06/88)
Organization: U Chicago Computation Center In article <14200@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (D 1 4 U 2 C) writes: >In article <1393@uoregon.UUCP> markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) writes: >) How incredibly poor in FAITH is a man who will only believe what >) is SHOWN to him, what is EXPLAINED to him, what cannot be >) denied. If one adopts a religion, one is forced to accept the >) fact that there are things which cannot be explained or proved. >) It makes for a much simpler lifestyle, and for some, one that is >) potentially more rich. > >Way to go, Mark. Spoken like a true neo-conservative. Accept >authority, don't ask questions, and wear ignorance like a badge! > >(Oh, and please don't just write back to say how liberal you think >you are. Anyone who can voluntarily and so thoroughly shut off the >brain that he believes his creator gave him should not engage in >arguments.) I find your summary of Mark's comments lacking in intellectual subtlety. The distinction he is drawing is between faith and reason. To summarize centuries of commentary quickly. Even if you believe that it is possible to reason to the existence of God, there are still matters of orthodox Catholic thought, for example, as Aquinas pointed out, which cannot be reasoned to -- Mary's immaculate conception, or the doctrine of the Trinity. Believing such things has nothing to do with the intellect; belief is a matter of will. To believe such things does not suggest that you are turning your mind off. It simply suggests that you appreciate that you are not the ultimate end of existence and that you are accepting the fact that things are which you cannot fully understand. Personally, I am unmoved by Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God, and I believe (bad word -- Latin was much better for such discussions) that belief in God cannot be demonstrated -- that it is also *solely* a matter of faith. I personally don't have such faith, but I have to say that the fact that I cannot reason to God's existence, or demonstrate it in a rigorous way makes the act of will of those who still believe all the more powerful. Mark's distinction was one which Kierkegaard made -- what degree of faith does it take to say that the sun will rise in the East every morning? Belief in a god whose existence cannot be proved, or for that matter in another human being who may choose to leave at any instant is a *true* act of faith (love). As I said, I don't believe myself, but I don't dismiss those who do as fools, nor do I demean a long and powerful intellectual tradition. John Tomas U Chicago Computation Center
gadfly@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Gadfly) (01/06/88)
> ... If one adopts a religion, one is forced to accept the > fact that there are things which cannot be explained or proved. I think you've got it backwards. Without the crutch of religion, a person has to deal head-on with the puzzles and chaos of the world. It is people *with* religion who will tell you, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it." To these people everything, all of life and death, has been explained. > It makes for a much simpler lifestyle, and for some, one that is > potentially more rich. For some, yes indeed--all the way to the bank. *** *** J'EN AI RAS-LE-BOL ***** ***** ****** ****** 06 Jan 88 [16 Nivose An CXCVI] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-8042 ** ** ** ** ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** ***
dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) (01/07/88)
Oh, I can't wait to respond to Mr. Mark Ritchie's allegations and aspirsions. You wan't to call me names Bubba? Rather than try to have a intellectual discussion - fine. One can just use that in retrospective to the type of person who originates it. Dull-minded, trapped animals always start looking for spelling errors or picky points when they find nothing else. If you continue, I won't bother to reply to your jibberish. In the interest of your well spoken refutation I will now endeavor to "punch you in the nose" the same way you attempted, in vain, to punch mine. >But don't just take my word on it... I was able to hear a lecture >by a historian from Oxford (England) on just this subject, and he Who? Who did you hear? Who, where and when? What are his credentials? Have you a transcript of his speech? That kind of evidence dosen't even get past 1st base. I wont even dignify that claim with a response. I would really invite a discussion from you. Let's get some preliminary things out of the way and then we can focus in on some real points OK? Are you listening? Are you willing to give it a try? Mr. Ritchie, is the Bible fact? Did God create the Universe in 6 days, or stop the sun in the sky to aid Joshua? Did Jesus feed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish? Did a man actually talk to a donkey or live inside a whale? Facts Mr. Ritchie? How about Moses - did he part the Red sea? And tell me, just how old is the Universe according to the Bible? More facts? Do you believe in Darwin's theories? Do you believe that God can be blood-thursty, jealous, or sanction stupidity, slavery, bigamy or murder? Where was the mighty Jehova when millions of people were being slaughtered during the 1940s? Where is the historical evidence of the resurrection of the alleged Jesus? When I quote some contradictions to you in the Bible that's all I'm pointing out - contradictions. I'm not trying to say "I'm right - you're wrong." I'm only showing you points that don't back up each other. I believe that the majority of people belonging to a church really have no idea of what the core of the beliefs are. Most shut off their brain, open their wallets and purses, and follow without ever studying their religion in depth. Let's begin with the few preliminary questions I posed to you above and then see where we go. But if you want to present evidence in the future, lets make it authoritative. I've heard many people say many things - and as you so aply put it "that don't make it so." -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- !{ihnp4!hpda!seismo!utah-cs!uplherc}!sp7040!dale "The agony of my soul found vent in one loud, long and final scream of despair." --POE
markv@uoregon.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) (01/08/88)
In article <3019@sphinx.uchicago.edu> jst1@sphinx.uchicago.edu.UUCP (John Tomas) writes: >In article <14200@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (D 1 4 U 2 C) writes: >>(Oh, and please don't just write back to say how liberal you think >>you are. Anyone who can voluntarily and so thoroughly shut off the >>brain that he believes his creator gave him should not engage in >>arguments.) I don't have to write back about how liberal I am. I think that the terms liberal and conservative have been bandied about too much, to the point that they don't really mean anything. As to your comment about my voluntarilly turning off my brain, that is precisely the point. My intellect recognizes the futility of trying to prove the existence of a god. If god is indeed the omniscient being, how could I possibly understand god? Recognize him/her? (hah! avoiding feminist flames ;-) Your attitude is precisely the kind of intolerance which baffles me. The addage "a closed mind is an empty mind" leaps to mind here. My mind is not closed, I ponder the great mystery's of life quite often (where am I going? how long have I got? is there a god? do giraffes sneeze?) My religious faith is relatively small, precisely because of my dedication to reason and intellectual pursuit. But I do recognize certain things being beyond the capability of intellect to determine. (See Hilbert's Theorem :-) >Personally, I am unmoved by Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God, and I >believe (bad word -- Latin was much better for such discussions) that belief in >God cannot be demonstrated -- that it is also *solely* a matter of faith. Agreed. >I >personally don't have such faith, but I have to say that the fact that I cannot >reason to God's existence, or demonstrate it in a rigorous way makes the act of >will of those who still believe all the more powerful. Mark's distinction was >one which Kierkegaard made -- what degree of faith does it take to say that >the sun will rise in the East every morning? Belief in a god whose existence >cannot be proved, or for that matter in another human being who may choose to >leave at any instant is a *true* act of faith (love). Faith is an absolutely amazing thing, analogous to Real (tm) Love. Everytime I see an example of true faith, as well as true love, I am amazed by the fact that people can achieve such miraculous things. I don't understand it, I have never felt like I had either of the two, but I at least have a limited ability to recognize it when I see it. Faith is not a turning off of mind, it is not fantasy. Part of my personal declaration of faith is that I try to "understand" and learn more about my faith. But learning isn't always an emotional process... But then it seems, I have some detractors :-) >As I said, I don't believe myself, but I don't dismiss those who do as >fools, nor do I demean a long and powerful intellectual tradition. Thanks John, couldn't have said it better.... >John Tomas >U Chicago Computation Center mark vandewettering, can god be recognized by a turing machine?
") (01/08/88)
) >markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) writes: ) >) If one adopts a religion, one is forced to accept the ) >) fact that there are things which cannot be explained or proved. ) >) It makes for a much simpler lifestyle, and for some, one that is ) >) potentially more rich. ) matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Me) writes: ) >Way to go, Mark. Spoken like a true neo-conservative. Accept ) >authority, don't ask questions, and wear ignorance like a badge! jst1@sphinx.uchicago.edu.UUCP (John Tomas) writes: ) I find your summary of Mark's comments lacking in intellectual ) subtlety. ... I'm arguing with a guy who is praising the virtue of turning off his brain and you want me to be SUBTLE??? I'll ignore the rest of what you wrote because it is irrelevant and also makes you look like a U of C undergraduate who just had his first common-core course in history of religion. Which may very well be the case. Matt I can incant, decant and recant, but I can't cant.
markxx@garnet.berkeley.edu (,,,,MG59) (01/15/88)
In article <212@sp7040.UUCP> dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) writes: > >Oh, I can't wait to respond to Mr. Mark Ritchie's allegations and aspirsions. >You wan't to call me names Bubba? Rather than try to have a intellectual >discussion - fine. One can just use that in retrospective to the type of >person who originates it. Dull-minded, trapped animals always start looking >for spelling errors or picky points when they find nothing else. If you >continue, I won't bother to reply to your jibberish. In the interest of your >well spoken refutation I will now endeavor to "punch you in the nose" the same >way you attempted, in vain, to punch mine. I am not going to bother to qoute my original article (If anyone is interested they can go back and look it up), but WHERE did you get that I was trying to "punch you in the nose"??? You seem to have totally ignored the majority of my posting, which WAS "trying to have an intellectual discussion" which you seem convinced I was trying to ignore. Spelling errors or pickey points? I certainly was not bringing up pickey points by raising issues related to linguistic accuracy, cultural context etc. of Biblical manuscripts. It seems that YOU are the one avioiding the intellectual discussion. > > >But don't just take my word on it... I was able to hear a lecture > >by a historian from Oxford (England) on just this subject, and he > >Who? Who did you hear? Who, where and when? What are his credentials? >Have you a transcript of his speech? That kind of evidence dosen't even >get past 1st base. I wont even dignify that claim with a response. The disclaimer that I put at the end of that statement was that just because I say someone says it doesn't make it true, you ommitted. Fine. That "kind of evidence" was not suppossed to go past first base. The other many points that I raised were, and you have mentioned none of them. > >I would really invite a discussion from you. Let's get some preliminary >things out of the way and then we can focus in on some real points OK? Are >you listening? Are you willing to give it a try? > >Mr. Ritchie, is the Bible fact? Did God create the Universe in 6 days, or >stop the sun in the sky to aid Joshua? Did Jesus feed 5,000 people with >a few loaves of bread and a few fish? Did a man actually talk to a donkey or >live inside a whale? Facts Mr. Ritchie? How about Moses - did he part the Red >sea? And tell me, just how old is the Universe according to the Bible? More >facts? Do you believe in Darwin's theories? Do you believe that God can be >blood-thursty, jealous, or sanction stupidity, slavery, bigamy or murder? >Where was the mighty Jehova when millions of people were being slaughtered >during the 1940s? Where is the historical evidence of the resurrection of >the alleged Jesus? > >When I quote some contradictions to you in the Bible that's all I'm >pointing out - contradictions. I'm not trying to say "I'm right - you're >wrong." I'm only showing you points that don't back up each other. I believe >that the majority of people belonging to a church really have no idea of what >the core of the beliefs are. Most shut off their brain, open their wallets >and purses, and follow without ever studying their religion in depth. Let's >begin with the few preliminary questions I posed to you above and then see >where we go. But if you want to present evidence in the future, lets make >it authoritative. I've heard many people say many things - and as you so >aply put it "that don't make it so." > From the above questions that you raise (Genesis account of creation etc.) it is quite clear to me that you were more than willing to ignore the rest of my posting which was trying to discuss, intellectually, these issues. For instance, in my last posting I had raised the question, in regard to the alleged contradictions, what translation you were using, had you investigated the cultural and literary context etc. You apparently have not. Take for instance the Genesis account of creation in 6 days. IF you go back to the original language, and compare that passage to other secular texts written at the same time, it becomes clear that the passage is written as allegorical poetry. In addition,if you analize the cultural/historical context out of which this passage comes, you discover that each of the days mentioned correspondes to a diety or pantheon of a rival cultural/ethnic group. The whole point of the passage is not to assert that Jehovah had created the world in 6 literal days, but that He was a) the origin of life for the Jews, and b) was more powerful than the gods of rival groups surrounding them. Taken in its proper context, the contradictions that you assert exist disappear. The fact that some people (notably the so-called "scientific" creationists) choose to ignore both historical, linguistic and literary evidence in understanding the cited passage does not change that. As to the origins of the universe, personally I do believe in evolution, that the earth is billions of years old etc. The Genesis passage in no way contradicts that, if you take the time to understand it on its OWN terms. So my questions from my original posting still stand, regarding the linguistic/historical/literary context of your citations. I agree with you that a lot of people belonging to a church have little idea of what the core of there beliefs are. Most do not study their religion in depth. If you are going to attack it however, it would be good to go to the same effort that others have in trying to understand it, and not simply attack what at first glance seem to be contradictions. That is what my original posting was saying. If you chose to take it as a "punch in the nose" then I don't see that we could have an intellectual discussion about these issues. Mark Ritchie
roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) (01/15/88)
In article <6565@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> markxx@garnet.berkeley.edu (,,,,MG59) writes: >Take for instance the Genesis account of creation in 6 days. IF you go back >to the original language, and compare that passage to other secular texts >written at the same time, it becomes clear that the passage is written as >allegorical poetry. This is an absurd cop-out... trying to use the Bible both as a work of divine information AND, when that fails, as a work of human literature. If you believe in it as a holy book, it must be treated as literal and divine; any revisionist interpretation that subjects it to literary interpretation and then continues to use it to defend a religious position is a wishy-washy drivel, fit only for the students of homogenized Sunday-school religion to use this half-assed reading to break some commandments, or endorse scientific principles at odds with the literal content, and still believe they're in God's grace. Get ON the bandwagon, or get OFF it. (I make no claims herein about my beliefs, or, alternatively, lack thereof.) -- ///==\\ (Your message here...) /// Roger B.A. Klorese, CELERITY (Northeast Area) \\\ 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701 +1 617 872-1552 \\\==// celtics!roger@necntc.nec.com - necntc!celtics!roger
dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) (01/19/88)
Mark Ritchie sez: >that YOU are the one avioiding the intellectual discussion. >that I raised were, and you have mentioned none of them. >is quite clear to me that you were more than willing to ignore the rest >the alleged contradictions, what translation you were using, had you >investigated the cultural and literary context etc. You apparently have not. Quit trying to tell me what I have done and didn't do! You have no idea the extent to which I have examined anything. Simply because I haven't read and re-read the Bible until I have hypnotized myself that it's true you make me out to be ignorant. To answer your question, I am doing a great deal of researching nearly every evening. I am looking at several Bibles, translations and contexts, and yes I do have a Greek and Hebrew/English dictionary. The trouble with some people is that when they are confronted with a direct, inexplicable contradiction they say "Oh that's an allegory" or "that's a parable" or "that's an anecdote." Fortunately for these people there is no way to actually say when something is fact and when it's poetry. If it don't fit - it's poetry! When do you get off the bus, Bubba? >Take for instance the Genesis account of creation in 6 days. IF you go back >to the original language, and compare that passage to other secular texts >written at the same time, it becomes clear that the passage is written as ...compare to other secular texts? Like what? >allegorical poetry. In addition,if you analize the cultural/historical context >out of which this passage comes, you discover that each of the days mentioned >correspondes to a diety or pantheon of a rival cultural/ethnic group. The Oh? Sounds like you are evading the issue to me. Show evidence please. Where in the Bible does it say that the days are not equal to a normal day? >Taken in its proper context, the contradictions that you assert >exist disappear. You mean "Taken in YOUR proper context" they do. > As to the origins of the universe, personally >I do believe in evolution, that the earth is billions of years old etc. The >Genesis passage in no way contradicts that, if you take the time to understand >it on its OWN terms. You mean "YOUR own terms." Genesis in no way contradicts the age of the earth? What does your Bible say in the inner margin at the first chapter of Genesis? Something about 4004 B.C. ring a bell? Wake up and smell the coffee. >of there beliefs are. Most do not study their religion in depth. If you are >going to attack it however, it would be good to go to the same effort that >others have in trying to understand it, and not simply attack what at first >glance seem to be contradictions. Not only are they contradictions at first glance - they continue to be. Again you presume the extent of my research. You have an annoying habit of immediately declaring anyone who disagrees with you to be "out of context." Just what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway? Out of context with what? Your original posting called me that too: >yes. Please do. I would be interested in seeing how you have taken the >citations out of context. Hell, Bubba, you said I was out of context before you even heard anything. I believe you are right - we CAN'T have an intellectual discussion. You have made up your mind already - there's no point in discussing anything. You've got the answers. There's no need. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- !{ihnp4!hpda!seismo!utah-cs!uplherc}!sp7040!dale BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME.
wayneco@tekecs.TEK.COM (Wayne Cook) (01/24/88)
In article <1923@celtics.UUCP> roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes: >In article <6565@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> markxx@garnet.berkeley.edu (,,,,MG59) writes: >>Take for instance the Genesis account of creation in 6 days. IF you go back >>to the original language, and compare that passage to other secular texts >>written at the same time, it becomes clear that the passage is written as >>allegorical poetry. > >This is an absurd cop-out... trying to use the Bible both as a work of >divine information AND, when that fails, as a work of human literature. > >Get ON the bandwagon, or get OFF it. It is interesting on how much controversy the "creation" passages cause. The fascinating thing is that the Hebrew word that is translated as "day" in the King James Version of the Bible could be translated as "1000 years" or "time it takes to complete a task" as well. Any of those three translations would fit the word. Unfortunately, I do not have a Hebrew text with me at the present time, so I cannot share the Hebrew word with you. Another thought on this is that God gave us all free will. The thoughts and concepts in the Bible are devinely espired, but the words were the best the "prophet" could find to describe those ideas. So all writing in the Bible reflects the time in which it was written as well as the will of God. So having a book, like Genesis, where the thoughts are God's but the languages is man's is not that unusual and does not make the Bible any less valuable as a source of inspiration. Borrowing a quote from Mike Andrews "May God Bless" Wayne Cook