arndt@lymph.dec.com (09/16/86)
Someone, I can't remember who (I'm losing the battle of the desk top here and about to put a match to the whole thing and start over) and I can't find the posting, brought up Christ cursing the fig tree as an example of 'God having a snit' and who could believe in a God who goes around cursing trees, etc.etc. In my mind's eye I can see a long line of guys like him standing before God at the Last Judgement saying things like, "How was I to know?" and expecting to make a favorable impression. What I mean is one would think it might be reasonable to expect someone to realize that an account of something that happened two thousand years ago in a different culture involving an item (figs) which we in our culture only see wrapped in plastic on a food mart shelf, . . . it might be reasonable to expect them to suspect more than meets the 20th century reading eye! But then when the average public schooler can only read on the 4th or 5th grade level what else is new? One sees the same kind of tripe expressed over and over on the nets - rabid unconscious ethnocentric rantings. The true mark of a public school pagan! Especially about things Christian and the Bible. I wonder do they tell their doctor how to examine them? Or advise authoritatively the auto mechanic who works on their car? Or do they realize that perhaps there may be some areas in which a little probing beyond the 'obvious' might be in order before offering an opinion with such a 'know it all' tone. And I confess that, unfortunately, I have seen the same kind of thing among Christians sometimes when holding forth about what the scripture says or doesn't say!! Perhaps it's a function of the crazy American corruption of the idea that every man's opinion should be heard into every man's opinion has weight. Shoot first and think later! But shoot! Anyway, on to the figs. The incident is related by Mark and Matthew. Jesus went to the fig tree and found nothing but leaves and Mark relates that it was not the season for figs. Then Jesus cursed the tree saying, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again", (Mark 11:14). Next morning passing the tree again the disciples were amazed to find the tree dead. Now if you and I are talking and I say, "My son works on Wall Street", you know I mean he works with stocks and bonds. Or if I had said Madison Ave. you would have understood something. Would anyone two thousand years from now??? Or in the time of Jesus?? Perhaps not. They might think I was mentioning only the street on which my son worked - not at what job he was employed. One could think of a hundred other examples. I can't write for ALL readers in time. No one DOES! We HAVE to take into account the cultural context of an historical document!! There ARE, boys and girls, some things in the scripture that we STILL don't know what is referenced. Just so with ANY document of age. Just so the fig tree! Matthew and Mark weren't writing with the 20th Century pagans, who only see plastic wrapped figs, in mind!! W.M. Christe, a Church of Scotland (thank God for the glorious Church of Scotland!) minister in Palestine during the British Mandate regime pointed out the time of year the incident was said to have taken place, given that Jesus was crucified in early April, means that "Towards the end of March the leaves begin to appear, and in about a week the foliage coating is complete. Coin- cident with this, and sometimes even before, there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early forerunner. They grow to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite maturity they drop off." W.M. Christie, PALESTINE CALLING, London,1939, pp.118-120. F.F. Bruce, quoting Christie as above in THE HARD SAYINGS OF JESUS, InterVarsity Press, 1983, pp 208-9, remarks that these precursors of the true fig are called TAQSH in Palestinian Arabic. If the leaves appear with no TAQSH it is a sign that there will be no figs! Remember, God's curse is upon a mal-formed world, a broken world. A world not as he made it, 'good', and not the way it 'ought' to be. In fact God has promised to DESTROY this world and replace it with another that is 'good' again. In light of this understanding it is perfectly natural, reasonable, and wonderful that Jesus should 'curse' the barren fig tree which should have provided food for them when they were very hungry!! The way you or I might curse the death of an infant! (Theological turtles will here see some problem because they cannot conceive of God creating beings/things not an extension of himself and therefore all the 'blame' and accountability for a 'broken' world must rest at God's door and it is somehow unfair of God to require payment for 'sins' from a sinner since God created the sinner, blah, blah, blah.) Remember Jesus at the tomb of his friend Lasarus weeping because of death? Or weeping over the lack of belief of the Jews to receive him as Messiah? God hates death and hates our angst just as we do! But he can and has done something about it! Whereas we are powerless without him. I believe that the cursing of the fig tree should be seen in this light and was recorded for us by two apostles to express this very thought. I don't know about you, but it gives me chills to think of Jesus placing his curse upon what is wrong with/in the world. My curse is merely an expression. I shake my fist at death, etc. and nothing happens. His curse, his expression like mine that the world is 'broken' results in judgment! People are falling all over themselves to save the whales/seals/children (strange, but it often seems to be in that order) and one really wonders if ANYTHING really lasting is accomplished. In light of the above, how silly indeed is the 'God in a snit' explanation for this recorded event! How much is lost by not looking further. Well, keep chargin' Ken Arndt
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (09/17/86)
In article <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: >Anyway, on to the figs. The incident is related by Mark and Matthew. Jesus >went to the fig tree and found nothing but leaves and Mark relates that it was >not the season for figs. Then Jesus cursed the tree saying, "May no one ever >eat fruit from you again", (Mark 11:14). Next morning passing the tree again >the disciples were amazed to find the tree dead. [And an explanation of possible reasons] Yes, Jesus was a very balanced, level-headed, sane man. He cursed a tree that through no fault of its own (isn't EVERYTHING except human will controlled by JHVH?) happened to not be capable of bearing fruit for a season. Well, a worship of a dead psychopath is as good as any other, right? If J.C. is any reflection ] on JHVH, Phillip K. Dick and J.R. "Bob" Dobbs were right about Him! >Remember, God's curse is upon a mal-formed world, a broken world. A world >not as he made it, 'good', and not the way it 'ought' to be. In fact God >has promised to DESTROY this world and replace it with another that is >'good' again. Uh, He MADE it that way! Why the sudden show of resentment? Or is Jhvh so poor an engineer that even after a major overhaul via The Flood He still couldn't get things working right? >In light of the above, how silly indeed is the 'God in a snit' explanation >for this recorded event! How much is lost by not looking further. Ken, if you REALLY believe that Jhvh is THE GOD and is the Creator of the Universe and all the powerful and omnipotent things Bible and Xtian scholars would have us believe -- what does it matter WHY JC cursed the damned tree? And why is it important to you and other Xtian nitwits to prove to us that JHVH and JC are really great guys that love us a whole bunch? If Jhvh is THE GOD DOES THAT REALLY MATTER?! Are you afraid to discover that your Creator is an asshole? And IFF He was -- WHY would that change anything?!! He would STILL be THE LORD GOD, KING of KINGS, etc. and you STILL have to dance His tune? So why all these excuses and apologies? You make me sick..... Hey, Xtians! How many of you would continue to worship your God if it were undeniably proven to you that he is the Damager-God? Why WOULDN'T you? Oleg "Have guts to admit your God is is an asshole" Kiselev HASA, "A" division on a Drug Crussade!
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/17/86)
Ken Arndt launches into yet another frenzy of fuzzy thinking! In article <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: > Anyway, on to the figs. The incident is related by Mark and Matthew. Jesus > went to the fig tree and found nothing but leaves and Mark relates that it was > not the season for figs. Then Jesus cursed the tree saying, "May no one ever > eat fruit from you again", (Mark 11:14). Next morning passing the tree again > the disciples were amazed to find the tree dead. As miracles go, this is pretty pitiful. The tree might have been knocked down, ripped up, or girdled for all the text says. [Explanation of how JC could have seen that there were no figs developing on that tree, even though if there were they wouldn't be ready.] > ... In light of this understanding it is perfectly natural, > reasonable, and wonderful that Jesus should 'curse' the barren fig tree > which should have provided food for them when they were very hungry!! > The way you or I might curse the death of an infant! Not at all. Cursing the death of an infant doesn't cause death. And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing the tree is simply wanton destruction. -- Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a case brimming with such poetical emotion?" Chancellor: "Distinctly." From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/19/86)
In article <1150@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) brilliantly "lucidates": >Ken Arndt launches into yet another frenzy of fuzzy thinking! >In article <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: >> Anyway, on to the figs. The incident is related by Mark and Matthew. >> Jesus went to the fig tree and found nothing but leaves and Mark relates >> that it was not the season for figs. Then Jesus cursed the tree saying, >> "May no one ever eat fruit from you again", (Mark 11:14). Next morning >> passing the tree again the disciples were amazed to find the tree dead. >And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing >the tree is simply wanton destruction. Fig trees have deep roots and are extremely hardy compared with the more common apple, peach, etc., which are more common hereabouts. Consequently, they usually don't have "barren" years. If this tree wasn't fruiting there probably was something seriously and fatally wrong. Pruning diseased trees can be a good thing, even if you do it with a damn! To say that it was "wanton"ly destroyed, is probably just a random vocalization resulting from "fuzzy wuzzy" thinking!!! +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (09/21/86)
[warning flame ahead] In article <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: >Someone, I can't remember who (I'm losing the battle of the desk top here [content deleted] > >Well, keep chargin' > >Ken Arndt A new crusader appears to have jumped on the net. Every so often someone attacks the net with a vengence, spewing out article after article. Mr. Arndt appears to be the most recent example. I have been following talk.religion.misc since its inception and have been for the most part very pleased with the high traffic and intelligent discussion in it. However, occasionally someone like Mr. Arndt comes along and damages the arguments of many on the net. His rambling, almost unreadable text is filled with condescending remarks and sickening cuteness. He evidently expects people to agree with his opionions simply because he has said it is so. This attitude and method greatly denigrates the efforts of the many well meaning, intelligent Christians who have been submitting articles to this newsgroup. I must also comment on his disgusting racial slurs and political diatribe which he inserted into one of his early articles. That kind of statement does not have any place in this newsgroup. I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people of diverse religious backgrounds to live together in peace. It is the intoleration of opposing religious views which has recently been on the rise in the US that has so many non-Christians striking back in retaliation. I urge everyone who participates in this newsgroup to keep their postings intelligent and thoughtful. Postings like Mr. Arndt's are ineffective at changing opinions and merely incense others. This then leads to emotional rhetoric from the other side and the ensuing feud wastes time which could better be spent on logical, adult discussion. I am also amazed at people who post to the net without even bothering to substantiate their words. Perhaps this is inevitable in a discussion on religious issues. So many people have been taught religion since early childhood that I believe they simply accept it as fact. It is obvious that many Christians have had almost no real exposure to any other religion but their own. In fact it seems that they are even unaware of the many different sects and offshoots of the Christian religion which are thriving today. I would urge everyone to spend a little time studying religion before making rash statements which will simply be rebutted immediately by someone more knowledgeable. Not wanting to beat a subject into the ground, but it keeps coming up. Christian supporters keep quoting from the Bible and other Christian religious works as 'proof' of certain things. I would hope that you will soon realize that most of us who do not agree with you will not accept any of these quotes as proof in any way. The concept of circular reasoning has been brought up over and over. I suggest you look up the term and try a new method of persuasion. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) (09/22/86)
[warning light ahead]...Well perhaps In article <8590@duke.duke.UUCP> rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) writes: >[warning flame ahead] > >In article <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: [munch] >>Ken Arndt > >A new crusader appears to have jumped on the net. Every so often someone >attacks the net with a vengence, spewing out article after article. Mr. Arndt >appears to be the most recent example. I have been following >talk.religion.misc since its inception and have been for the most part very >pleased with the high traffic and intelligent discussion in it. However, >occasionally someone like Mr. Arndt comes along and damages the arguments >of many on the net. His rambling, almost unreadable text is filled with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Perhaps you can't damage an argument unless it has holes in it...?(-: If you *just* disagree *simply* state your position. History and your arguments will stand on it's own....But words like 'vengence', 'attacks', 'spewing', 'damages', 'unreadable'. Emotional words from someone who want's intelligent discussion? >condescending remarks and sickening cuteness. He evidently expects people >to agree with his opionions simply because he has said it is so. This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If this is the case it would have been noticed and *that would be that*.... >attitude and method greatly denigrates the efforts of the many well meaning, >intelligent Christians who have been submitting articles to this newsgroup. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And you speak for all? (Some ? ... a few ... 1)? >I must also comment on his disgusting racial slurs and political diatribe ^^^^^^^^^ I've read many postings by Ken and haven't seen any of this nature *yet*. An example would have been in keeping with what you expect from yourself. (I hope that people will not think I'm trying to speek for them here. I'm voicing my own views here... ie 1) >which he inserted into one of his early articles. That kind of statement >does not have any place in this newsgroup. > >I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian >viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people >of diverse religious backgrounds to live together in peace. It is the ^^^^^^^^^^^ To have peace one must be humble first to *accept* differing views. Here 'accept' is as in 'endure' without protest but still adult disscussion can happen. >intoleration of opposing religious views which has recently been on the ^^^^^^^^^^ There is a difference between intoleration and defence. To some defence *SEEMS* like intolerance. Two guesses why. >rise in the US that has so many non-Christians striking back in retaliation. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ever thought that 'retaliation' causes defensiveness, as in to defend? >I urge everyone who participates in this newsgroup to keep their postings >intelligent and thoughtful. Postings like Mr. Arndt's are ineffective ^^^^^^^^^^ It's been known that opinions are ineffective if you don't agree. >at changing opinions and merely incense others. This then leads to emotional >rhetoric from the other side and the ensuing feud wastes time which could ^^^^^^^ See above. >better be spent on logical, adult discussion. > >I am also amazed at people who post to the net without even bothering >to substantiate their words. Perhaps this is inevitable in a discussion ^^^^^^^ Use only accepted secular texts? ( I know you talk about circular reasoning later however....:-) >on religious issues. So many people have been taught religion since early >childhood that I believe they simply accept it as fact. It is obvious >that many Christians have had almost no real exposure to any other religion >but their own. In fact it seems that they are even unaware of the many >different sects and offshoots of the Christian religion which are thriving >today. I would urge everyone to spend a little time studying religion >before making rash statements which will simply be rebutted immediately >by someone more knowledgeable. > These last statements I agree with (just so I'm not labeled a critic here). [munch] >...The concept of circular reasoning >has been brought up over and over. I suggest you look up the term and >try a new method of persuasion. > >Jim Nusbaum [munch] >R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, [munch munch] And again I agree in that last statements. Jim I can see your upset. You fail to live up to your ideal in this posting though. What do you feel about people that have a personal experiance with God? Many Christians take that for granted when they quote the Bible as support. (re circular reasoning etc...) I realize Ken should reply here in his own defence. I feel issues here affect more then him. You brought up a problem. Here is an observation: The method and attitude that you use in your posting are a self example of some problems in this group. I hope I haven't cast too much gloom on your day though! # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/22/86)
In article <251@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: > In article <1150@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing > >the tree is simply wanton destruction. > > Fig trees have deep roots and are extremely hardy compared with the > more common apple, peach, etc., which are more common hereabouts. > Consequently, they usually don't have "barren" years. If this tree > wasn't fruiting there probably was something seriously and fatally > wrong. Pruning diseased trees can be a good thing, even if you do > it with a damn! First, you're just guessing, since there's nothing in the Bible suggesting that in the least. Second, any god who can supposedly perform resurrections could surely have performed a different miracle and caused the tree to spontaneously bear fruit (or be cured, if your silly speculation is assumed.) I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret the bible to cast god in a favorable light." You blatantly assume what you want to prove, rather than examining the evidence (such as it is.) -- Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a case brimming with such poetical emotion?" Chancellor: "Distinctly." From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/23/86)
>> >> In article <1150@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> >And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing >> >the tree is simply wanton destruction. >In article <251@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >> Pruning diseased trees can be a good thing, even if you do it with a damn! In article <1156@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >Second, any god who can supposedly perform resurrections could surely have >performed a different miracle and caused the tree to spontaneously bear >fruit (or be cured, if your silly speculation is assumed.) Very true, but remember Mike, some of us are more thick headed than others and we couldn't learn that there miracle thing so good in this life, so maybe we should be give a few lessons in "tough love". You can't imagine what monsters some of us turn out to be when "mommy" and "dada" always come to the rescue every time we mess up. >I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume >god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret >the bible to cast god in a favorable light." >You blatantly assume what you want to prove, rather than examining >the evidence (such as it is.) On dear, I'm guilty, I'm guilty! Do anything - but Please,.. I beg you! DON'T FEED ME TO THE CHRISTIANS. aaaaaahhhhhggga Gee, I think I've met me a "flaming liberal". +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (09/24/86)
In article <258@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >In article <1156@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >>Second, any god who can supposedly perform resurrections could surely have >>performed a different miracle and caused the tree to spontaneously bear >>fruit (or be cured, if your silly speculation is assumed.) >Very true, but remember Mike, some of us are more thick headed >than others and we couldn't learn that there miracle thing so >good in this life, so maybe we should be give a few lessons in >"tough love". You can't imagine what monsters some of us turn >out to be when "mommy" and "dada" always come to the rescue every >time we mess up. Sounds to me like the "Sure, I *could* have done that...I just didn't want to" you probably heard when the neighborhood pompous ass was cornered as a kid. You really believe in a god like this? It is unfortunate that many religious people have to resort to doublespeak when it comes to dealing with "miracles". They blindly assume that whatever this entity that they so dearly want to believe is good, ALWAYS does good. Regardless that it may be killing a tree for being a tree, sending humans to hell for being imperfect (even though *he* supposedly made us this way), cursing the human race for seeking knowledge, razing the entire earth with a flood, killing multitudes in cities he decided weren't quite good enough for him, killing children for taunting a prophet, and the list goes on. >>I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume >>god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret >>the bible to cast god in a favorable light." >>You blatantly assume what you want to prove, rather than examining >>the evidence (such as it is.) > >On dear, I'm guilty, I'm guilty! Do anything - but Please,.. I beg you! > DON'T FEED ME TO THE CHRISTIANS. aaaaaahhhhhggga You mean you can't think of anything substantial to say to Mike's point? He brought up a good one, yet all you do is flail around it and make sarcastic remarks. Why not add a bit of response along with them? By the way, you ARE guilty if you are a christian. Your religion teaches you that you are born with ready-made sin. And it seems that it is too late. You have already been "fed" to the christians. Believe if you wish, but please do not think that the rest of the net will look at the absurdities expressed about this "miracle" and not wonder, doubt, and perhaps disbelieve. It will always be illogical to many of us that this "wonderful and caring fatherly god" would wontonly kill one of his creations because it was imperfect when he himself made it that way. >Gee, I think I've met me a "flaming liberal". Really? Mike H? Now that *is* funny! Mikki Barry HASA ---------------------------------------------- "Here are the five alternate histories," Graud said, his wise old eyes crinkling humorously. "Each of you will be responsible for planting the evidence to make one of these histories seem fairly credible."
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/25/86)
Let this be a lesson to you, dear readers: read and comprehend the whole article before writing a response, or you'll shoot yourself in the foot. In article <1156@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP I write: > [paragraph 1 omitted] > I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume > god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret > the bible to cast god in a favorable light." You blatantly assume what > you want to prove, rather than examining the evidence (such as it is.) In article <258@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) answers paragraph 1's argument with exactly the same sort of fallacy: > Very true, but remember Mike, some of us are more thick headed than others > and we couldn't learn that there miracle thing so good in this life, so > maybe we should be give a few lessons in "tough love". Perhaps you need a lesson in "tough love", Paul. Shall I ask Charlie Wingate to stand behind you with a broomstick to discipline you whenever you repeat a fallacy you've just been chastised for? -- "A loud-mouthed, red-necked stogie-sucker! And them's good eatin'" Anonymous duck in Bloom County. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rush@cwrudg.UUCP (rush) (09/27/86)
In article <1156@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <251@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >> In article <1150@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> >And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing >> >the tree is simply wanton destruction. >> [some text in defense of God's actions esp. that there was something wrong with the tree] > >First, you're just guessing, since there's nothing in the Bible suggesting >that in the least. > >Second, any god who can supposedly perform resurrections could surely have >performed a different miracle and caused the tree to spontaneously bear >fruit (or be cured, if your silly speculation is assumed.) > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > I always thought that Jesus was warning His disciples in much the same way He warned them through Matt 23+, Luke 14 (or 17), and other apocalyptic passages in scripture. He did pick a rather vivid method of illustration though. That fig tree makes another appearance in scripture, at least in figure. The owner of it speaks that it has borne no fruit in three years. Jesus came that we might 'bear much fruit'. This fruit is essentially a holy life, full of faith and good works. This discussion is off track... 'The message of the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, but to we who are being saved it is the power of God.' or some such. If you want to hurl insults at God, go ahead, you will receive your reward. If you are interested in finding out about God's character, humble yourself and ask. He is good or He isn't God. That is a personal definition. I find that YHWH is just such a God. (p.s. I felt that way long before I became a christian, too, and I think that is the primary point of contention in this discussion. Unfortunately I don't have time now for further exploration of this topic...) Richard Rush - Just another Jesus freak in computer science decvax!cwruecmp!cwrudg!rush All things that look like scripture may not be, since I am working from memory only.
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (09/29/86)
In article <2572@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes: > >[warning light ahead]...Well perhaps > >In article <8590@duke.duke.UUCP> rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) writes: >>[warning flame ahead] >> >>In article <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: [text deleted] ># Mike Gore ># Institute for Computer Research. ># These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo. The above article was a criticism of my criticism of Ken Arndt's postings. It contained a misconception that others may also have. To clear this up let me say that my posting was a gripe about Ken's style of argument not the basic content. He has the right to argue as much and as long as he wants concerning Christianity. He should avoid personal attacks and poor argumentative style however if he wants to convince me and many others that his is the correct or true belief. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
gkm@ho95e.UUCP (gkm) (09/29/86)
[deleted material] > I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian > viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people > [deleted material] > I am also amazed at people who post to the net without even bothering > to substantiate their words. Perhaps this is inevitable in a discussion > on religious issues. So many people have been taught religion since early > [deleted material] > Not wanting to beat a subject into the ground, but it keeps coming up. > Christian supporters keep quoting from the Bible and other Christian > religious works as 'proof' of certain things. I would hope that you will [deleted material] > > Jim Nusbaum > > Jim, I should think you would realize by now that Christians define themselves and their beliefs by what is written to them by God in the scriptures (i.e. The Bible). You and others refer to this as circular reasoning, however when I, atleast refer to the Bible, I am not trying to convince someone like yourself, but other Christians who accept it as the Word of God. Should I attempt to convince you or someone else who is not a Christian of the truth of Christianity, I would use an entirely different approach. It is referred to as a presuppositional argument. If is best presented by a Christian named Cornelius Van Till. In essence, it shows that there are really only two positions: the Christian one and the non-Christian one. Next, each position is presupposed as being the truth, and tested as to its ability to explain reality. Gary McNees
cc@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/01/86)
Jim Nusbaum wrote: >> I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian >> viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people In article <913@ho95e.UUCP> gkm@ho95e.UUCP (gkm) responds: >... Should I attempt to convince you >or someone else who is not a Christian of the truth of Christianity, >I would use an entirely different approach. It is referred to as a >presuppositional argument. To make sure, why don't you do THAT from now on whenever you expect your article to appear in net.religion/talk.religion.misc? If you insist on using Bible as a "Word of God", you can do it in the special sand-box created for x-tians only, mod.religion.christian (former n.r.c). Just assume that most of the people reading your article are HASA members who do not presuppose the absoluteness or correctness of scriptural references. And, BTW, there AREN'T just TWO points of view (Xtian and the OTHER). There are MANY points of view. Rest assured, Islamic, Taoist and Atheist viewpoints (just to take a random 3) differ from each other as much as from Xtianity. Oleg Kiselev, HASA, "A" division
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (10/02/86)
In article <913@ho95e.UUCP> gkm@ho95e.UUCP (gkm) writes: >[deleted material] > >> I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian >> viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people >> >[deleted material] >> I am also amazed at people who post to the net without even bothering >> to substantiate their words. Perhaps this is inevitable in a discussion >> on religious issues. So many people have been taught religion since early >> >[deleted material] > >> Not wanting to beat a subject into the ground, but it keeps coming up. >> Christian supporters keep quoting from the Bible and other Christian >> religious works as 'proof' of certain things. I would hope that you will >[deleted material] >> >> Jim Nusbaum >> >> >Jim, I should think you would realize by now that Christians define >themselves and their beliefs by what is written to them by God in >the scriptures (i.e. The Bible). You and others refer to this as >circular reasoning, however when I, atleast refer to the Bible, I am >not trying to convince someone like yourself, but other Christians >who accept it as the Word of God. Should I attempt to convince you >or someone else who is not a Christian of the truth of Christianity, >I would use an entirely different approach. It is referred to as a >presuppositional argument. If is best presented by a Christian >named Cornelius Van Till. In essence, it shows that there are >really only two positions: the Christian one and the non-Christian >one. Next, each position is presupposed as being the truth, and >tested as to its ability to explain reality. > >Gary McNees Of course I realize that Christians define their beliefs by what is in the Bible! I'm glad that you would use an argument like you described, but the fact is that no one else has bothered to make an argument like that on this newsgroup and that is what I am complaining about. People keep saying to read the word of God, and repent and it will all be made clear to me. Bullshit! I've read enough of the 'word of God' and although I certainly agree with many of the moral standards and teachings of Christianity, I find nothing special in these teachings. They are basically the same as the moral teachings of many other religions and philosophies. As to the other aspects of Christainity, I've seen no reasons to suspect that these are true explanations of reality. I see very few devout Christians who I respect. The image of Christianity I see today in the US is that of TV preachers and abortion clinic bombers. When your God deals with these people, who are using his name and teachings in a warped way then maybe I'll believe. You and maybe others on the net may be good well meaning people, but the others drown out your voices. You know I would even be impressed if someone could give me a solid argument as to why Christainity is better than any other of the worlds major religions. BTW, I do believe in a superior power. I have only to look at the wonders of this planet and the living creatures on it to see my miracles. I don't need any promises of personal salvation to coerce me into loving my fellow creatures. What arogance it is to think that in the immensity of time and space, the creator would give a holy damn about the lives of a single species on a single planet. The creator has given us the greatest blessing imaginable, life and a beautiful planet to live it on. We make our own heavens and hells, don't blame them on God. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay