arndt@indian.dec.com (09/24/86)
Marty, Marty:
I LOVED your perverse explanation of the 'Christian' use of cursing!!
Truly an inspiration to us all. If only some of the other theologically
constipated netters could loosen up like you.
I'm sure you have a great future either as a Unitarian minister or a used
car salesman. (Perhaps BOTH - a full seven days of 'charging')
Marty takes 'God damm it' to new (not really, only on the net) heights!
In sum:
o it acknowledges God exists
o presumes he has power
o presuems he is listening
Ergo, actually an act of worship!
Even in the mouth of an unbeliever it is a 'tribute' to a believer's faith.
Why oh why do you have to be in California? Think of the theological
discussions we could have! You are creative, intelligent and slightly bent.
Count me as one of your 'fans'.
So nice try. But in reality the Apostle Paul nails guys like you way back in
the first century. "Should we sin that grace may more abound" is the way he
puts it. Of course his answer is NO! Because, you see, even further back
Moses passed on the word, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God
in vain."
The entire sin of man may be summed up in the idea that he presumes the
perogitives of God! Per my original posting's definition of blasphemy.
Man has a wide legitimate range of 'improvement' and 'movement' designed
and ordained by God. 'Fulfillment' IS finding one's place!! And staying
there. That's were it all comes together for one.
You try to say presuming the perogitives is 'getting closer to God'. Worship!
Rather it's foolishness. Dangerous and evil. Like jumping off the theological
garage roof with a hanky held by the ends.
Let me give you an example of what I mean - I know you realy are only trying
to pull my chain. Remember the Greek myth of the guy who asked for eternal
life and forgot to ask for eternal youth??? He just got older and older and
could never die! Horror. Must have driven his kids (all generations) into
the Poor House paying for all that Dad Kennel space. Just so when Christians
pray and close the prayer, as we have been instructed to do for this very
reason, "If it be thy will". Because it could be a horror if we actually got
everything we ask for. So we acknowledge God's attributes/perogitives in
dealing with our requests.
Care to try your hand on the Trinity? I'm not trying to get you to blaspheme
but you have perhaps a talent for viewing things from a different angle and
I don't beleive you believe what you are saying.
Thanks for the fun.
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndtmarty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (09/25/86)
Organization: In article <5507@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@indian.dec.com writes: [minor deletion] >Marty takes 'God damm it' to new (not really, only on the net) heights! >In sum: > o it acknowledges God exists > o presumes he has power > o presuems he is listening > > Ergo, actually an act of worship! > >Even in the mouth of an unbeliever it is a 'tribute' to a believer's faith. [minor deletion] >So nice try. But in reality the Apostle Paul nails guys like you way back in >the first century. "Should we sin that grace may more abound" is the way he >puts it. Of course his answer is NO! Because, you see, even further back >Moses passed on the word, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God >in vain." > >The entire sin of man may be summed up in the idea that he presumes the >perogitives of God! What does this phrase mean: "presumes the perogatives of God?" (a) takes on the powers of God; or (b) assumes God has those powers. I assume you mean (a) because there is clearly nothing sinful about (b). But how does use of the curse "God damn it" imply that I am trying to take on the powers of God? It does not. If I could take on the powers of God, I could damn whatever I please. But I would be a benevolent God, so I wouldn't really damn anybody. I might put the fear of Me in the fundamentalists though. No, use of the curse does not presume the perogatives of God, because I know I cannot do such a thing. I *do* exist. God saw to that. But I'm neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and there is no danger of me attaining either status soon. So I can't damn anything, and I know it. So, to persist in the belief that cursing presumes the perogatives of God is mere superstition. Now what of Paul's question: "Should we sin that grace may more abound?" If sinning actually increased the amount of grace, then I would say yes, we ought to sin, because grace is certainly something we need more of. Sinning would thus be a form of self-sacrifice, again a form of worship. "I do this fornication willingly, that there may be more grace in the world." Why did Paul have to be unclear about what he was saying? Why didn't he just say, "Sin does not increase the amount of grace. If you sin, your personal grace level will be lowered." He confused the issue by asking the question in such a way that the answer is not clear. As for Moses's statement, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;" this is a command, not an argument that one ought not to take the Lord's name in vain. But such an argument would be obviously true. If God exists, is omnipotent, and is omniscient, only a fool would run the risk of pissing him off. But the important question is, how does one take the name of the Lord thy God in vain? Use of the curse "God damn it" does not. It acknowledges the aforementioned perogatives. I claim you only see it as blasphemy, because your vision is made cloudy by quotes from the Bible. Statements of the form "God does not exist" are statements that take the name of the Lord thy God in vain and are blasphemous. That is, when the statement "God does not exist" is uttered as a declaration that, indeed, there is no God, then the person uttering that statement has, from the Christian point of view, taken the name of the Lord thy God in vain. >Man has a wide legitimate range of 'improvement' and 'movement' designed >and ordained by God. 'Fulfillment' IS finding one's place!! And staying >there. That's were it all comes together for one. Well put. May we both find our respective places. Or have you already found yours? >You try to say presuming the perogitives is 'getting closer to God'. Worship! >Rather it's foolishness. Dangerous and evil. Like jumping off the theological >garage roof with a hanky held by the ends. I say I am NOT presuming the perogatives of God, but this brings up an interesting contradiction. If presuming the perogatives of God is sin (shouldn't we be saying "PRErogatives"?), but I am (a) created in God's image and (b) supposed to strive for the perfection of being one with God, then where must I stop so as not to presume the prerogatives of God? As for jumping off the theological garage roof with a hanky held by the ends, this would be an act of great faith for a believer who knew nothing of parachute-ology. >Care to try your hand on the Trinity? I'm not trying to get you to blaspheme >but you have perhaps a talent for viewing things from a different angle and >I don't beleive you believe what you are saying. You start. Whatever I post won't be blasphemy from my point of view, and I won't deliberately try to offend. But I do believe what I am saying, not with the fanaticism of a fundamentalist, but with the healthy doubts of one who has not yet found his place. One more thing: If you are correct, and use of the curse "God damn it" does presume the prerogatives of God, then so does "God bless you." God bless you, Ken Arndt. Marty Smith
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (09/25/86)
A point I indended to discuss in my last posting but forgot concerns Ken's use below of the term evil. >You try to say presuming the perogitives is 'getting closer to God'. Worship! >Rather it's foolishness. Dangerous and evil. Like jumping off the theological >garage roof with a hanky held by the ends. I've already said I do not presume the prerogatives of God when I curse, because it is impossible to presume the prerogatives of God. It is indeed foolishness to believe that I could. But it is not evil. Evil is that which causes suffering and which intends to cause that suffering. When I curse with "God damn it," I am at that moment in a state of suffering. I utter the curse to help relieve the suffering. Therefore it is not evil. It would be evil, if I did it to offend a fundamentalist for example, because the offense would cause the fundamentalist to suffer, and I would utter the curse for the purpose of causing that suffering. But fundamentalism itself causes suffering, in the form of the needless guilt some poor believers feel over the non-sins they have committed. The question is, is fundamentalism motivated to cause this guilt? If so, then it is evil. Marty Smith
tcmaint@tektools.UUCP (Kim Vandemore) (09/26/86)
Keywords:Public school pagans > >So nice try. But in reality the Apostle Paul nails guys like you.... > >Thanks for the fun. > >Keep chargin' > >Ken Arndt In a reply to Ken, I asked if I might at have met him at Groton; since he verbally thrashed the 'public school trash!' concerning cursing fig trees. However, he obviously leans towards a more Paulian (read Cath- olic) philosophy and obviously did not attend that Anglican institution (although the Kennedys did.) Of course, it could be possible that he, himself, may have attended a (shutter) public school. But, I digress. Paul was in the habit of nail- ing Christians until his consience (some say vision) caught up with him. Then he attempted to belittle his Pharisee brothers by confronting them in the Damascus temple. Imagine, this would be similar to Reagan joining the Communist Party and then proseltizing at the National Headquarters of the John Birch Society. Actually, Paul was a self-centered, woman hating religious politician who jumped onto the Christian bandwagon because he could not advance as a Pharisee (even they hated tax collectors.) Consequently, Paul gained rel- igious power in the same way Hitler gained political power. They were much alike. Just think, Christianity owes its' entire philosophy to this one man (well, at least the most of it.) So, Christianity, itself, is a myth and definitely pagan. Superstition, lies and cant its' only redeeming qualities. God is forgotten and replaced by ritual heresy. Jesus would shutter at the idolatry. So Ken, you privileged, private school preppy--Keep on Charging! Tad Dowe
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) (09/29/86)
It would seem that *your* idea of the word DAMN - Damnation is not a curse. Well this is an English problem as well. The place or the state of damnation is that of the final loss of soul or destruction. So when you say 'God Damn' you instruct God to Damn whatever your talking about. To use the word by definition is to Swear -and you are telling God to Damn something which isn't *our* right. Even though *you* don't mean anything bad -if I get the drift. You knew or now know *what* you are saying. To 'DAMN' something is to Judge it because the *word* damnation from it's Greek word (See Unger's Bible dictionary or a Bible with a concordance) *is* the place of Judgement and destruction. But beyond that *no place* in the Bible is using the word Damn or a Curse *like* it given in the Light you would like to use it (harmless in your eye's). If something happens bad we should have sorrow! Look at Job what was his example? He had enough to be sad about but his Joy was in God. Show examples where a Curse was worship and the word was 'DAMN' in the Bible. Or try to use Scripture to give light to your ideas. This might clear things up -Remember that 'DAMN' is the place of Judgement/destruction. Then follow this thought: Deuteronomy 1:17 " Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgement belongs to God." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Isiah 58:11 (NIV) "...and not doing as you please or speaking *idle* [my emph.] words, then you will find your joy in the Lord..." So what are 'idle' words? Try words said *without* thought - as if to make idle 'damnation' *because you said you DID NOT mean it* - well that is idle. You can say that you mean good by it *but* you thus make the word 'idle' the further from it's intent you make it.... Well perhaps I understand where you were coming from now. But still the point stands. You might now understand why people quoted the various verses to you... Keep looking. I trust God will make things clear as you search with your heart.... # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) (09/30/86)
In article <1609@tektools.UUCP> tcmaint@tektools.UUCP (Tad) writes:
[much deleted ... more after this]
To which I reply (being out of form to raise a point -but *not* to
endorse my method of doing so....) :
For a moment I thought this came from the HASA -On a bad day
I try not to think of them as the (Heckling Antics Slander Abyss -HASA).
It was the style that deceived me. Statements that don't diplomatically
*try* to understand the 'other' side but use slander (perhaps unwitting)
to replace objectivity. They dump so much garbage at every turn they
can't even 'smell' the answers we give through the stink they make -let
alone make sense of them. Try to tell us that 2 + 2 = 5 for large values
of 2 just to prove how dumb *we* are (-:. But I digress... So ask me what
have I just done (re HASA)? Is it right? Does reason win? Is Christ
honored? *NO!* We learn over and over Christian or non-Christian that
free society *dies* when *such* tactics replace diplomacy, reason or truth...
But *please* in case you believe what you write here try to
understand us ok? What use (purpose) are your statements?
So many...'so soooo many myths about what Christians believe where is one
to start' -I ask myself? How is one take your meaning?
You state:
= Actually, Paul was a self-centered, woman hating religious politician who
= jumped onto the Christian bandwagon because he could not advance as a
= Pharisee (even they hated tax collectors.) Consequently, Paul gained
= religious power in the same way Hitler gained political power. They were
= much alike.
= Just think, Christianity owes its' entire philosophy to this one man
= (well, at least the most of it.) So, Christianity, itself, is a myth
= and definitely pagan. Superstition, lies and cant its' only redeeming
= qualities. God is forgotten and replaced by ritual heresy. Jesus
= would shutter at the idolatry.
^^^^^^^^
...Jesus would have tears in his eyes after reading this....
As a wise and weary 'sheep' I utter a parable an idea an example
a thought - To defend to instruct:
'...In humiliation the WORD was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of Tad's sources? For his
ideas were taken out of thin air...'
(ACTS 8:33 NIV -paraphrase mine)
Jesus died because of lies and mocking...
So Enough said...
= So Ken, you privileged, private school preppy--Keep on Charging!
= Tad Dowe
I thank God for Ken and other Christians on this net.
(PS. No harm intended Tad -don't misunderstand. I tried to use humour -
what ever I could think of to get the point home on your level. Just
wanted to make you think about what you said ok? Please keep searching
though...)
# Mike Gore
# Institute for Computer Research.
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (09/30/86)
Organization: In article <2590@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes: > > It would seem that *your* idea of the word DAMN - Damnation >is not a curse. Well this is an English problem as well. Now we're getting somewhere. I don't know where yet, but it seems a person's attitude is important when cursing. > The place or the state of damnation is that of the final loss >of soul or destruction. So when you say 'God Damn' you instruct >God to Damn whatever your talking about. I never instruct God to do anything. I never even ask God to do anything. God is omniscient and omnipotent. I have no power over God. I cannot instruct God. I am God's creation. When I say "God damn it," I express how I feel: very negative. If, on the other hand, I believe that I can presume the prerogatives of God and I say "God damn it," then I am guilty of using God's name in vain. Your claim that this is true all of the time is based on your incorrectly presuming my prerogatives. That is, you presume to know my attitude. Or, you presume that I must have your attitude in order to be a Christian. You have judged me in a way reserved for God alone. >To use the word by >definition is to Swear -and you are telling God to Damn something which >isn't *our* right. Even though *you* don't mean anything bad -if I get >the drift. This is part of what I mean, and you continue to say that it is wrong in spite of my assurances. This can only mean that the words themselves are what you are afraid of. This is idolatry on your part. >You knew or now know *what* you are saying. To 'DAMN' >something is to Judge it because the *word* damnation from it's >Greek word (See Unger's Bible dictionary or a Bible with a concordance) >*is* the place of Judgement and destruction. But beyond that *no place* >in the Bible is using the word Damn or a Curse *like* it given in >the Light you would like to use it (harmless in your eye's). I'm sure you are correct about damn in the Bible. God knows what I am thinking when I use the curse, because God is omniscient. And because only God is omnipotent, my use of the curse *is* harmless unless God chooses to do someting about it. >If something happens bad we should have sorrow! Look at Job what was >his example? He had enough to be sad about but his Joy was in God. > > Show examples where a Curse was worship and the word >was 'DAMN' in the Bible. Or try to use Scripture to give light >to your ideas. I admit that I cannot do what you ask. Christiandom has not allowed the Bible to change over the centuries. Thus, the Bible has lost meaning rather than gained. And please forgive me; I sense that I have offended you with my arguments. That is not my purpose. >This might clear things up -Remember that 'DAMN' is >the place of Judgement/destruction. Then follow this thought: > > Deuteronomy 1:17 > " Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and > great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for > judgement belongs to God." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Clearly, this does not say that I should not judge, only that my judgements cannot send any man to heaven or to hell. > Isiah 58:11 (NIV) "...and not doing as you please or speaking > *idle* [my emph.] words, then you will find your joy in the Lord..." > > So what are 'idle' words? Try words said *without* thought - as if to >make idle 'damnation' *because you said you DID NOT mean it* - well >that is idle. You can say that you mean good by it *but* you thus >make the word 'idle' the further from it's intent you make it.... My curses are definitely not idle. They relieve a measure of internal suffering. No wonder then that I associate them with prayer. How is this relief obtained? Is it not from God? I believe it is not from Satan. I believe it is from God. > Well perhaps I understand where you were coming from now. But >still the point stands. You might now understand why people quoted >the various verses to you... I do understand, and appreciate your ideas. > Keep looking. I trust God will make things clear as you search >with your heart.... Thank you. Marty Smith
tcmaint@tektools.UUCP (Kim Vandemore) (10/01/86)
>You state: > >= Actually, Paul was a self-centered, woman hating religious politician who >= jumped onto the Christian bandwagon because he could not advance as a >= Pharisee (even they hated tax collectors.) Consequently, Paul gained >= religious power in the same way Hitler gained political power. They were >= much alike. >= Just think, Christianity owes its' entire philosophy to this one man >= (well, at least the most of it.) So, Christianity, itself, is a myth >= and definitely pagan. Superstition, lies and cant its' only redeeming >= qualities. God is forgotten and replaced by ritual heresy. Jesus >= would shutter at the idolatry. > ^^^^^^^^ Mike: Paul's political struggle to keep the various churches together is well documented in the bible. His insistence on the the use of his teach- ings, as opposed to the more 'jewish' teachings of Peter's, are also much in evidence in the new testement. Paul's attitude towards sexual relations evolved into a celibate priesthood which proscribed certain foods in contra- vention to Paul's specific remarks. That he became the center and driving force of the Christian movement cannot be denied. Most of the new testement is evidence of his driving will and incidence on the 'right' of his interpretation of 'what' Jesus said, did, and meant by what he said. Faith, then, relieves others of any doubts concerning the right or wrong of what Paul espoused. They can blindly quote him, as you did for my benefit. By the way, an heresy; using the bible in an effort to cast me into a sinister position, a veritable anti-christ. A religious attack which reminds me of Paul's attacks on the backsliders and revisionists. There is only one God, not three. There is not three-in-one; just ONE. Jesus was his son, as are we all. We can petition, and become closer through prayer and meditation on the sayings of Jesus, not Paul's. Although Jesus upheld the prophets, Paul denied them by changing the food restrictions, sacrifice and rituals by which Jesus lived. Jesus had a perfect message for mankind and Paul, in hubris, interpreted it into his own light. For him, ok, but to any other, just a hodge-podge of poorly expressed and misleading cant. It direct- ed attention away from the author and shone it onto the plagerist. Every zealous Christian I speak with has ACTS down cold. Subsequent books of the new testement are also much quoted, but when it comes to the old testement and the first four books of the new, well, their not so handy. They are all Paul's disciples, not Jesus'; as you appear to be. Perhaps I was wrong to characterize how Jesus would feel about the evolution of his message, but I shudder at the heresy some of the supposed Christians write to the net; yours notwithstanding. Their bitterness and vitriolic att- acks aimed at others who say something in disagreement with them, sickens me. Sometimes shocking statements help towards a discussion whereby the 'log' can be removed from their blind eye before they instruct others. The doubt, hate and bitterness is certainly not an example of Jesus' teachings; nor is a self- righteous patronization of others you displayed towards me. (Nor really is mine towards you.) If you look objectively, my generalizations are not without merit. If they are unacceptable to you, I can provide chapter and verse. Of course, born- agains will avow that the 'devil' can quote from the bible. Very convenient for them, not so? Tad
rjb@akgud.UUCP (10/07/86)
Tad Dowe,
This is net.religion.christian forever how much longer it is to
exist. In the future, when you feel the urge to vomit on Christians
please do it in net.religion or talk.religion.
--
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
This is what i think...WHO knows what the Corporate genii up Nawth think ??