jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt ) (10/22/90)
Watching people trying to "prove" the resurrection is usually quite entertaining,
primarily because they go about it so badly. For instance, witnesses are
claimed. When it is pointed out that the witnesses are not available,
it is then claimed that since the witnesses are not, then their statements
will be taken (a'la court of law). And then it is pointed out that their
statements are not available, just what someone ELSE wrote they said they
say. Hearsay. But let's use a bit of legalise cross-examination on the
accounts that ARE available - though they are second-hand...
MATTHEW
[28:1] ... Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the grave. [2]
Suddenly there was a strong earthquake; an angel of the Lord came from heaven,
rolled the stone away, and sat on it [4] The guards were so afraid that they
trembled and became like dead men. [5] The angel spoke to the women, "You must
not be afraid ... Jesus ... [6] ... has been raised ... [7] ... Quickly now, goand tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from death, and now he is going to
Galilee ahead of you; there will you see him'. [8] So they left the grave in a
hurry ... and ran to tell his disciples. [9] Suddenly Jesus met them and said,
"Peace be with you." ... [10] .. "... Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee,and there they will see me." [16] The eleven disciples went to the hill in
Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. [17] When they saw him they worshippedhim, even though some doubted.
MARK
[16:1] ... Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome ... [2] ...
went to the grave [3-4] On the way they said to one another, "Who will roll
away for us the stone ...?" ... then they looked up and saw that the stone had
already been rolled back. [5] So they entered the grave, where they saw a youngman sitting at the right ... [6] "Don't be alarmed," he said. "... Jesus ...
has been raised! ... [7] Now go and give this message to his disciples,
including Peter: 'He is going to Galilee ahead of you, there you will see him,
just as he told you'" [8] So they ... ran from the grave ... they said nothing
to anyone, because they were afraid.
[9] After Jesus rose from death ... he appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...
[10] She went out and told it to his companions ... [11] ... they did not
believe her. [12] After this, Jesus appeared in a different manner to two of
them while they were on their way to the country. [13] They returned and told
it to the others, but they would not believe it. [14] Last of all, Jesus
appeared to the eleven disciple as they were eating. He scolded them, because
they did not have faith ... [19] After the Lord Jesus had talked with them, he
was taken up to heaven ...
LUKE
[24:1] ... the women went to the grave ... [2] they found the stone rolled awayfrom the entrance to the grave, [3] so they went in; but they did not find the
body ... [4] suddenly two men ... stood by them. [5] ... the men said to them,
"... he has been raised ..." [8] ... the women ... [9] returned from the grave
and told all these things to the eleven disciples and all the rest. [10] The
women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; they and the
other women with them told these things ... [11] But the apostles ... did not
believe them. [12] But Peter ... ran to the grave ... and saw the grave clothesand nothing else ... [13] On that same two of them were going to a village
named Emmaus ... [15] ... Jesus himself drew near and walked with them; [16]
they saw him but somehow did not recognize him ... [33] they got up at once andwent back to Jerusalem, where they found the eleven disciples ... [34] and
saying, "The Lord is risen indeed! He has appeared to Simon!". [36] While they
were telling them this, suddenly the Lord himself stood among them ... [50]
then he led them out of the city as far as Bethany ... [51] As he was blessing
them, he departed from them and was taken into heaven.
JOHN
[20:1] ... Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been
taken away from the entrance. [2] She ran and went to Simon Peter and the otherdisciple whom Jesus loved and told them, "They have taken the Lord from the
tomb and we don't know where they have put him!" [3] Then Peter and the other
disciple ... went to the tomb. [4] ... but the other disciple ran faster than
Peter and reached the tomb first. [5] He bent over and saw the linen clothes,
but he did not go in. [6] Behind him came Simon Peter, and he went straight
into the tomb ... [8] then the other disciple also went in; he saw and
believed. [10] Then the disciples went back home. [11] Mary stood crying
outside the tomb ... and looked in the tomb, [12] and saw two angels there ...
sitting where the body of Jesus had been ... [13] "Woman, why are you crying?"
they asked her. She answered, "They have taken my Lord ..." [14] When she said
this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there; but she did not know it
was Jesus. [15] "Woman, why are you crying?" Jesus asked her. "Who is it you
are looking for?" She thought he was the gardener, so she said to him, "If you
took him away, sir, tell me where you have put him ..." [16] Jesus said to her,"Mary!" ... [17] "Do not hold on to me," Jesus told her, "...But go to my
brothers and tell them for me, 'I go back up to him who is my Father ..." [18]
So Mary Magdalene went and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord ...
[19] It was late that Sunday evening, and the disciples were gathered together
indoors again, and Thomas (called the Twin), was not with them when Jesus came
... [26] A week later the disciples were together indoors again, and Thomas
with them. The doors were locked, but Jesus came and stood among them ...
[21:1] After this, Jesus showed himself once more to his disciples at Lake
Tiberias.
----------------------
CONTRADICTIONS:
I hardly know where to begin; there are so many contradictions. I'll just
list some of the major problems:
*** First people to see the tomb early Sunday
MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome
LUKE: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, other women
JOHN: Mary Magdalene
*** What they see
MATTHEW: An angel rolling away the stone and sitting on it, on the
way back they see Jesus as they run
MARK: The stone already rolled away, a young man sitting inside
LUKE: The stone already rolled away, two men standing inside
JOHN: The stone already rolled away, an empty tomb, they run back to
get Peter and John, they also see an empty tomb then leave,
Mary then sees two angels sitting inside, she then turns
around and sees Jesus
*** Appearances of Jesus
MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; some time later he appears to the 11 in Galilee (where Jesus said he'd meet them)
MARK: Mary Magdalene; then to two disciples; then to the 11 as they
are eating together; then he ascends to heaven (Note that
Mark 16:1-8 and Mark 16:9-19 seem to be different accounts)
LUKE: two disciples (the same day); then to the 11 in Jerusalem (the
same evening), takes them to Bethany ans ascends heaven
JOHN: Mary Magdalene (on her second trip to the grave); then to the
11 minus Thomas (the same evening); then to the full 11
(a week later); some time later to 7 disciples as Lake
Tiberias
Hardly something suitable for legal, let alone "scientific" proof.
Better go back to faith...rr2g@rhonda.ce.Virginia.EDU (Rhonda R. Gaines) (10/23/90)
[Jim Meritt summarized some differences in the accounts of the Resurrection in the 4 gospels, including the people mentioned as being at the tomb, what they see (angels, or young men? who many?), the list of later appearances. He comments >Hardly something suitable for legal, let alone "scientific" proof. >Better go back to faith... --clh] I agree w/ the contradictions. There are also others involving the color of the robe Jesus was wearing (Can't quote scriptures at the moment) in Matt, Mark, Luke, & John. My reasoning of this is that these are accounts/stories that one could relate to modern times from the standpoint that if you asked 5 people to tell you about an accident scene they all witnessed each version of the accident would be somewhat different. The point I'd like to make is in regard to the resurrection itself. The bible uses biblical time i.e. a day is from sundown to sundown. When they went to the tomb Jesus was already gone and it was the first day of the week therefore he rose at the end of the sabbath day and not on Sunday morning. Considering this, why then is there a celebration of Easter/sun-rise service when there is a chapter in Eziekiel (sp?) (again can't recall the chapter - but will find it if you wish) which clearly states that sun-worship is pagan and an abomination unto God and dates to the Babylonians. This also states that they turned their backs to/on God because to see the sun they had/have to face away from the church. -rhonda Faith is where it's at... -- Rhonda Gaines | University of Virginia phone: 804-924-6265 | Thornton Hall bitnet: gaines@virginia.bitnet | Applied Mechanics Program internet: gaines@virginia.edu | Charlottesville, VA 22903-2442
tracy@uunet.uu.net (Tracy L. Brooks) (10/25/90)
I'm just writing to ask if anyone has read the jokes in rec.humor about the easter kit or sacreligious jokes? I can't believe people can be that way. Making jokes about the Lord! I've gotten flamed a lot of times but I don't care. They definitely will experience the wrath of God!!!
hermetic@byron.u.washington.edu (Heracleitos the Obscure) (10/28/90)
Hmmm, let's see: God created man in his own image (atually ALHIM 'elohim' =
'gods' created man in their own image, but we won't get into that here), I
have a sense of humor, if I am created in the image of God, therefore God
must have a sense of humor. Is this logical? Or perhaps you are created in
the image of God, in which case God does NOT have a sense of humor, in which
case I myself am definitly (in the words of a semi-eminent statesman) in deep
doo-doo, along with whole bunches of other people. But, hell, at least we'll
be able to trade jokes whilst the red-hot pitchfork-jabbing and such is going
on. Anyway.
On the YHVH problem, there is a solution to it, and it is to be found by a
Qabalistic transmutation of the tetragrammaton into an seven, eight or nine
letter name (it can be done each way); I have it written up somewhere, I will
post it maybe if there is any interest.
Heracleitos the Obscure = Joshua Gellermib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (10/28/90)
In article <Oct.25.03.09.38.1990.29440@athos.rutgers.edu> virtech!tracy@uunet.uu.net (Tracy L. Brooks) writes:
I'm just writing to ask if anyone has read the jokes in
rec.humor about the easter kit or sacreligious jokes?
I can't believe people can be that way. Making jokes about
the Lord! I've gotten flamed a lot of times but I don't care.
They definitely will experience the wrath of God!!!
Hmm. I hope that my Lord, who consented to being killed by people who
truly hated him, and still asked for them to be forgiven, would not
react so hastily when people make small jokes. My Lord just isn't
damaged that easily. On the other hand, laughing *with* the people
telling the jokes can, and has, resulted in them coming to know the
Lord. Interesting concept, living *with* the "evil"...almost smacks
of that revolutionary Jew who lived with lepers and ate with tax
collecters. What *is* the world coming to, indeed?
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!mmoore@ub.d.umn.edu (Michelle Moore) (10/28/90)
In article <Oct.25.03.09.38.1990.29440@athos.rutgers.edu> virtech!tracy@uunet.uu.net (Tracy L. Brooks) writes: >I'm just writing to ask if anyone has read the jokes in >rec.humor about the easter kit or sacreligious jokes? >I can't believe people can be that way. Making jokes about >the Lord! I've gotten flamed a lot of times but I don't care. >They definitely will experience the wrath of God!!! has anyone heard the latest? i was watching t.v. last night when i got home and there was some Christian dude and some guy defending the arts for congress (or something like that. i don't know the name of the show or who these people were... but they sure were upset) hey! i'm an artist! i think that the "censorship for obcene art" is wrong because to a true artist nudity can be very beautiful. however, this guy was defending the "art" that some people had done by sticking a crucifix of Jesus in a toilet of urine and filming it, and another one where someone had taken a picture of Jesus and made it look like he was "shooting up". now, i think that might be crossing the lines of (obcene)"art" just a wee tiny bit. any comments? (or should i say flames?) keep in mind that i am an artist, but i am also a Christian. (i guess the reason i included the above is because it sparked this thought : jokes are just the tip of the iceberg) also, that last line up there is kinda uncalled for. keep praying for them, and let God take care of it, okay? paghty (peace and good health to you :-) -- Jesus loves me, Yup yup yup - don't know why... Michelle "Shelly" "Mic" "Mickey" "Mickster" "Micaroonie" Moore
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (10/29/90)
In article <Oct.25.03.09.38.1990.29440@athos.rutgers.edu>, virtech!tracy@uunet.uu.net (Tracy L. Brooks) writes: > I'm just writing to ask if anyone has read the jokes in > rec.humor about the easter kit or sacreligious jokes? > I can't believe people can be that way. Making jokes about > the Lord! I've gotten flamed a lot of times but I don't care. > They definitely will experience the wrath of God!!! Well, I don't follow rec.humor.*; and I don't propose to start now. There are far too many people who think they are being funny and clever when all that is evident to me is malice. I don't blame you if you find much in these groups offensive. But there is a deeper question lurking here. There's quite a lot of joking around at seminary [I live at one, though my involvement is peripheral -- I'm not a student nor a staff member; I just live here] about God, some of it not obviously "reverent." Part of the mode is an odd (and I think understandable) combination of intimacy with God and humility and distancing from any arrogant claim that *institutional* connection with God is anything to brag about. That said, much of *our* joking would probably be felt as irreverent by the terribly earnest and non-self-conscious evangelical types. There are some definite limits, even if *my* behaviour might not seem limited when observed by a fundamentalist Southern Baptist. I would rather die than say *anything* that (*I* thought) was disrespectful, or mocking, of God. That is, for me, blasphemy is *obviously* sinful -- and at the same time no temptation at all. Does it hurt me if nonbelievers utter nasty things about my God? Well, yes; but how can it be anything *against them* if they have no belief? Any kind of joking (the "easter kit" you mention or any other) or bad-mouthing is misdirected if spoken by those who regard our God as at best a myth. These are mere words, said by those who THINK they have no meaning beyond a certain (supposedly) clever manipulation of standard cultural tokens. If such words are *meant* to wound, then any sin is comprised by that intent, or its consequent hurt. Not by the "content" of the expression. In short, I cannot conceive of a believer blaspheming, and other than "protecting delicate ears" (which hardly seems relevant if we are to be occupied bearing our crosses to our own personal Calvaries), what possible good could it do to "prohibit" nonbelievers -- who have no reason to respect our prejudices -- from exhibiting their disrespect? -- Michael L. Siemon Inflict Thy promises with each m.siemon@ATT.COM Occasion of distress, ...!att!sfsup!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (10/29/90)
Re: Tracy L. Brooks In article <Oct.25.03.09.38.1990.29440@athos.rutgers.edu> virtech!tracy@uunet.uu.net (Tracy L. Brooks) writes: >I'm just writing to ask if anyone has read the jokes in >rec.humor about the easter kit or sacreligious jokes? >I can't believe people can be that way. Making jokes about >the Lord! I've gotten flamed a lot of times but I don't care. >They definitely will experience the wrath of God!!! Dear Tracy, (*smile*) You can COUNT on the fact that I sympathize with your feelings on this... but please don't let your anger carry you to wishing ill of others. People are fallible, and people can sometimes be incomprehensibly cruel, in our eyes... but people also change. Many would have been the times that God would have been justified in focusing His "wrath" on US, too... but, as Christians, we believe that God forgives even those sins that humans find impossible to forgive. That's why we aren't convinced that we're going to "burn", or any other such thing. But, in good conscience, we have to hope the same for those people who offend us, too. You (and I) have a PERFECT right to be angry whenever God is slandered. Don't ever feel that anger in defense of the God that we love is unjustified. But anger has its time, and that time must eventually end. St. Paul once wrote, "If you are angry, let it be without sin ... the sun must not go down on your wrath," and I believe that that's true. There is a NECESSARY time for anger, whenever we've been hurt; but we have to hope (and to pray) that our anger won't hurt anyone, and that it will eventually fade. Love and forgiveness have their times, too... eternal ones.
davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) (10/29/90)
In article <Oct.25.03.09.38.1990.29440@athos.rutgers.edu> virtech!tracy@uunet.uu.net (Tracy L. Brooks) writes: >I'm just writing to ask if anyone has read the jokes in >rec.humor about the easter kit or sacreligious jokes? >I can't believe people can be that way. Making jokes about >the Lord! I personally understand the pain you feel. I really do. And the reason being is that the spiritual path I follow has also been the target of sacreligious attitudes. Only it was by Christians! It hurts, doesn't it? Do unto others.. David Hatcher
aerazo@ncar.ucar.edu (10/29/90)
(In reply to discussion of "God created man in his own image") Mark Twain said, "God created man in his own image, and man has been returning the favor ever since!" :-) -Michael Hill (never mind the username!) - -My signature is still in the works.
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (10/30/90)
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >Hmm. I hope that my Lord, who consented to being killed by people who >truly hated him, and still asked for them to be forgiven, would not >react so hastily when people make small jokes. My Lord just isn't >damaged that easily. On the other hand, laughing *with* the people >telling the jokes can, and has, resulted in them coming to know the >Lord. Interesting concept, living *with* the "evil"...almost smacks >of that revolutionary Jew who lived with lepers and ate with tax >collecters. What *is* the world coming to, indeed? This is not at all correct! Jesus did not "consent" to being killed. He stood in silence when faced with the hostility of his accusers. And He specifically said on the cross: "...for they know not what they do!" He refused to flee from His death, for the sake of mankind, whom after all He had come in the first place to help. If indeed Jesus had chosen to flee to safety, then would not have doubts about the validity of His Mission and Message inevitably have arisen in the minds of mankind? By refusing to flee, by courageously facing the torment and murder that awaited Him, Jesus therewith set an unbreakable seal of conviction upon the Message He had given to mankind. How mankind has since chosen to interpret and represent the Message of Jesus is a separate issue. The Mission of Jesus stands entirely on its own merit, regardless of the subsequent human activity concerning it. As for laughing *with* people about things concerning one's own faith, this sounds like nothing but simple cowardice to me! If something is not sacred to you (as evidenced by your *deeds*) then how on earth can you expect it to become sacred to someone else? Even if it's too hard to try to speak up at a particular time, one can perhaps then just walk away! I think that Jesus offered His help to those who truly sought in their hearts for it, and not otherwise. He did not humor fools, as evidenced, for instance, in His replys to those who sought to "trick" him with their questions, or with His driving the "money-changers" out of the holy Temple. Would Jesus have stayed with someone who did not respect Him? I don't think so! Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (11/02/90)
In article <Oct.30.00.17.30.1990.6784@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >Hmm. I hope that my Lord, who consented to being killed by people who >truly hated him, and still asked for them to be forgiven, would not >react so hastily when people make small jokes. My Lord just isn't >damaged that easily. On the other hand, laughing *with* the people >telling the jokes can, and has, resulted in them coming to know the >Lord. Interesting concept, living *with* the "evil"...almost smacks >of that revolutionary Jew who lived with lepers and ate with tax >collecters. What *is* the world coming to, indeed? This is not at all correct! Jesus did not "consent" to being killed. He stood in silence when faced with the hostility of his accusers. And He specifically said on the cross: "...for they know not what they do!" He refused to flee from His death, for the sake of mankind, whom after all He had come in the first place to help. If indeed Jesus had chosen to flee to safety, then would not have doubts about the validity of His Mission and Message inevitably have arisen in the minds of mankind? By refusing to flee, by courageously facing the torment and murder that awaited Him, Jesus therewith set an unbreakable seal of conviction upon the Message He had given to mankind. If he refused to flee, then he allowed himself to be killed. That is "consent". He did *not* object. He did *not* protest. He did *not* resist. That's what I mean by consent. To allow something to happen you could have stopped. I'm sorry if you thought I meant something else. As for laughing *with* people about things concerning one's own faith, this sounds like nothing but simple cowardice to me! If something is not sacred to you (as evidenced by your *deeds*) then how on earth can you expect it to become sacred to someone else? Even if it's too hard to try to speak up at a particular time, one can perhaps then just walk away! Oh, come on. It's not that I want to say something but I'm ashamed I'm a Christian. It's that I don't think they are being sacreligious. God is sacred, but words about God are not. How can someone "defame" the God they don't know? Blasphemy is a sin which can only be committed by a believer. I think that Jesus offered His help to those who truly sought in their hearts for it, and not otherwise. He did not humor fools, as evidenced, for instance, in His replys to those who sought to "trick" him with their questions, or with His driving the "money-changers" out of the holy Temple. Would Jesus have stayed with someone who did not respect Him? I don't think so! Not all meanings of the word "humor" are the same. I'm sure he laughed will all kinds of people. He certainly did everything else with them. Note that Jesus was willing to eat with detested people, *including* the Pharisees, and some who were unwilling to accept him. -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (11/06/90)
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >If he refused to flee, then he allowed himself to be killed. That is >"consent". He did *not* object. He did *not* protest. He did *not* >resist. That's what I mean by consent. To allow something to happen >you could have stopped. I'm sorry if you thought I meant something >else. Sorry, but the word "consent" can only have a particular meaning, and it is to the misapplication of the word in this case that I protest! In looking in the dictionary, we can find definitions for consent along the lines of: voluntary agreement, willingness, concurrence. That fact that Jesus stood in silence should not be construed to imply that He in any way consented to the proceedings -- He was not given any choice in the matter! I would say His silence was a clear protest to it! He simply refused to betray His Mission and Message no matter what He was threatened with. He could hardly be expected to consent to what was done! Jesus had brought His Word, His Teaching, to mankind, and in accordance with God's Will, mankind was free to respond as they wished to His Mission. It was not intended by God that mankind's free will should be "stopped" at this time, for this was an offer of help from God, made out of Love! It will be different with the Mission and the Message of the Son of Man-- His Word will also bring judgment with it. Mankind's free will to choose the *wrong* paths will be taken from them during the Millenium, in order that they may at last learn to know and live the actual Will of God. >Oh, come on. It's not that I want to say something but I'm ashamed >I'm a Christian. It's that I don't think they are being sacreligious. >God is sacred, but words about God are not. How can someone "defame" >the God they don't know? Blasphemy is a sin which can only be >committed by a believer. And I say that words about GOD are sacred. I say that GOD is the most sacred word that we have been given! Whoever debases the name, debases the concept! This is the reason we were given the Second Commandment. Taking the LORD's name in vain is a "sin" which can be committed by anyone! That just this practice is so widespread today is unfortunate, but we do not have to consent to it. We can protest it where possible. Let's try it and see! >Not all meanings of the word "humor" are the same. I'm sure he >laughed will all kinds of people. He certainly did everything else >with them. Note that Jesus was willing to eat with detested people, >*including* the Pharisees, and some who were unwilling to accept him. Of course Jesus laughed, but not about matters concerning the Almighty! I will say it again, that Jesus demanded respect from those with whom He associated. He did not humor fools. Should we do any less? Yes, by all means, let's be "true to ourselves" and to our GOD! What else? Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
lins@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lindsay Gower) (11/06/90)
virtech!tracy@uunet.uu.net (Tracy L. Brooks) writes: >I'm just writing to ask if anyone has read the jokes in >rec.humor about the easter kit or sacreligious jokes? >I can't believe people can be that way. Making jokes about >the Lord! I've gotten flamed a lot of times but I don't care. >They definitely will experience the wrath of God!!! Tracy, while I most definitely agree with you that many "jokes" are blasphemous, you must remember that the joke-tellers will experience the wrath of God. They do not need the wrath of Tracy. I saw your posting in .humor and IMHO do not consider it appropriate witness of Christian belief or love. "Yelling" at people does not show them Christlike behavior and it will not cause people to desire to know more about the peace of the Spirit that lives in us. I am posting this as a follow-up because I also want to say that I disagree with the response I read earlier encouraging laughing along with jokes which the hearer considers inappropriate. That's like saying when people make a funny crack about your Mom and Dad -- just laugh. When people make jokes and racial slurs about Jews, blacks, women -- just laugh. Can anyone truly think that is right? I would suggest instead either a shocked expression (which might naturally happen) or a poker face. Not a harangue of the joke-tellers flaws! Just a non- response; if asked why you don't think it's funny, then you could explain that the joke hurts you by hurting people you love. Perhaps this way we can "wean" believers away from a bad habit, and demonstrate Christlike behavior to non-believers. After all, maybe those who tell inappropriate jokes WON'T encounter God's wrath; maybe, with our help, they will come to know and to love, and to honor, God and obtain his forgiveness instead. Isn't that the aim? Lindsay Gower UniSoft Corp lins@unisoft.com
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/08/90)
In article <Nov.5.22.16.53.1990.21538@athos.rutgers.edu>, sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: > And I say that words about GOD are sacred. I say that GOD is the most sacred > word that we have been given! Whoever debases the name, debases the concept! > This is the reason we were given the Second Commandment. Taking the LORD's > name in vain is a "sin" which can be committed by anyone! Hang on a minute. "God" isn't His name. The English word "god" is used for all sorts of false gods (Brahma, the Celestial Emperor, Pan, Thunor, Tane, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Sulis, ...) and was used for false gods long before my Anglo-Saxon ancestors ever heard about the real one. It goes back to the Indo-European root "gheu-" "to call, invoke" and originally meant "that which is invoked". (Did you know that "giddy" goes back to a word meaning "possessed"? We speak a fascinating language.) This applies in many languages. Hashem is commonly referred to in Maaori as "Te Atua", which can also mean "ghost". If you want his _name_, that's YHWH. If I _have_ to pronounce that, I pronounce it "Adonai". (:-) But surely taking the Lord's name in vain refers to something much worse than swearing by something one doesn't understand. Surely claiming to be a Christian but denying the Lordship of Christ is one way of taking the Lord's name in vain? Surely claiming to be a Christian but setting your own judgement against His and calling good what He has called evil is taking the Lord's name in vain? Surely persecuting anyone, no matter how false their beliefs, in the name of our Lord is taking his name in vain? In short, isn't that commandment a dreadful warning to _religious_ people like us, not something we can safely refer to "them"? -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (11/09/90)
In article <Nov.6.03.24.54.1990.2623@athos.rutgers.edu> unisoft!lins@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lindsay Gower) writes:
I am posting this as a follow-up because I also want to say that
I disagree with the response I read earlier encouraging laughing
along with jokes which the hearer considers inappropriate.
I cannot but suspect that this refers to me. I've received some mail,
and it seems I was not making myself very clear. I'm not suggesting
laughing along with jokes in bad taste, or which you find offensive.
I was saying that refusing to laugh when you find it funny but
"contrary to law" is a pointless position. Even worse is lambasting
the joke teller as it appears the original poster in the thread had
done.
When I have talked to people who tell jokes some find offensive to
Christianity, I've discovered some real pearls of truth that I would
have never found if I'd spent my time expounding biblical quotes and
pontificating on the second commandment.
When people say such jokes intending to hurt me I can talk with them
about it. The real problem is a desire for hurt, not the method. The
more they know it hurts, the more they will persist. The only way to
stop it is to talk about it frankly and honestly. When people say
them to damage God, I can rest assured that they will have no such
effect. When they say them (as is often the case) as a method of
expressing distaste for religion in general or Christianity in
particular, I'd be reinforcing their (incorrect) ideas if I started
haranguing them. However, most often they say them not because they
want to hurt me, or God, or Christianity, but simply because the jokes
can be funny.
My old pastor was one of the best joke tellers I know. He had a
remarkable ability to recognize that the foibles of Christians and the
church were a source of great humor.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (11/10/90)
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Hang on a minute. "God" isn't His name. The English word "god" is used >for all sorts of false gods (Brahma, the Celestial Emperor, Pan, Thunor, >Tane, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Sulis, ...) and was used for false gods >long before my Anglo-Saxon ancestors ever heard about the real one. The word "mark" is not a name, but "Mark" is. No doubt each language has its own word for "God", but I maintain that this word (in whatever language) is indeed the most sacred word we have been given. The reason being that the word gives rise to the concept, and presumbably we all would agree that the concept of "GOD" is the necessarily the most sacred one of all. If someone misuses my name, they show me disrespect, no? Likewise, but even more so, when someone misuses the word "God". They are taking His name in vain. They are disrespecting it, and thereby disrespecting Him. Whether or not such a person claims to believe in God makes no fundamental difference, either way, they are abusing that which *should* be most sacred to them. The consequences, in accordance with the impartial Laws of Creation, will take effect in any event. Cheers, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801