1. Many cults use flowery language in their stories,... steeped in a kind of magical realism which seems beautiful, yet out of reach, --but to which the good practitioner might possibly be granted access if they promise to abandon themselves to the leadership of the clerics. Christians and Muslims and many New Age cults use Flowery Language to seduce.
3. Tiered command hierarchies. There are two kinds of organizational system; the first is the one we see all around us, where there are leaders at the top,... The Cell Based organizational structure is extremely powerful, far more so than the pyramidal system,...
Apparently you haven't heard, but Protestants have a doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers." The only difference between an ordained pastor and the layperson in the Lutheran church is the Divinely ordained authority of Word and Sacrament. Even then, in extreme cases, even a layperson can distribute the Sacraments and every single Christian can and should preach and live the Word. Ironically, abuses of authority was one of the major issues in the Protestant Reformation. One interesting side note is that the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, of which I am a member, is governed congregationally (that is, by democratic consensus in the congregation) rather than episcopally (an elected bishopric). Even the call in the LCMS is from the congregation, not something handed out by the "higher ups." (what higher ups, the only hierarchy in the church beyond lay/pastoral distinction is man-made)
I am reasonably certain, although the Catholics had problems at the time of the Reformation, that even in the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox, although they don't expressly admit a "priesthood of all believers," they recognize the fact that their authority is not something which makes them any better than their congregants. The role of a Christian minister is a "servant leadership." Their authority demands that they serve their congregations, not that they lord it over. If they do not recognize this fact then they aren't doing their job right, period...
Moreover, as a part of dealing with the spiritual realm, we will invoke "flowery language" because this is the revealed teaching of the Holy Spirit. We're not deferring to a man, we are deferring to God.
Also, from what little I know of Islam, there is no central hierarchy... even so, I would defer to a Muslim for comment on anything more.
4. Social control of members; Catholics like overpopulation as it once ensured hunger and limited resources for the masses. (Hungry and struggling people are less at risk from 'corrupting' themselves by growing strong and independent.) Mind-control practices; New Age groups and indeed want to make sure that they love-bomb their followers. Indeed, the Catholic system likes to schedule endless regular meetings using long and literally mind-numbingly dull rituals which wear down resistance in the followers and, to borrow from Joseph Goebbelism, repeat the lie often enough to make it true. They do not like to let their followers out of range of the group for too long. It is no mystery to those versed in social control measures why Catholics and New Age cult leaders both demand that members confess their 'sins' and personal secrets to the organization. Many religions use some variation of this system to keep control of their members.
I concur with you about Goebbels, and certainly these sorts of things are very prone to being abused. However, I suspect that it is in human nature to presume the worst about someone with whom you have little affinity.
From what I read of the Catholic policies, their policy against contraception, namely "the pill," stems from the fact that contraceptives are not 100% successful and even a 1% chance of an abortion is
Sorry I didn't finish this in the last post, but it was late and I wanted to commit what I'd already written so that it's there...
I find that many of the commonly accepted stories in the bible are worth questioning. For instance, I am not convinced that Christ was even crucified; there are claims made which describe the crucifiction as a holographic insert perpetrated by alien forces to alter human history in very specific ways. While this is a far-out story, there are a multitude of corroborating bits of evidence which suggest that such beings and technology are indeed in existence, (everything from crop circles and UFO's to high level physics which suggest that at higher levels of reality, time and matter are not obstacles to such interference.) I can definitely see how the crucifiction has taught humankind behavioral patterns which allow easy subjugation to psychopathic business and political leaders, ("turn the other cheek", "forgive and forget", "love thy enemy") --All worthy ideas from one point of view which the crucifiction brutally twisted in the minds of everybody so as to allow a wide-spread version of Stockholme Syndrome [wikipedia.org] to afflict every corner of society. As a very basic for instance, would Bush have gotten away with so much villainy if the national psyche was not set up to continually forgive him his lies and murderous actions?
The "holographic insert" theory sounds very much like you were influenced by Scientology. To begin with, I do not make a definitive statement as to whether extraterrestrials exist or do not. Even so, I do think it absurd to suggest that they would create a religion, presumably Christianity since this is what we're discussing, in what amounts to a backwater planet with primitive technology without some motivation. What do they hope to gain by it? If, in the unlikely chance, they did do this it would either be a tool for subjugation or for human benefit.
In the case of subjugation, it would be absurd to promote a religion which teaches that each and every person is a child of God and that the true authority does not belong to any power in this universe except the God who created it. Moreover, Christ warns about false messiahs and deceiving prophets who would attempt to spread lies in His name, and there is no compelling reason that would lead us not to subject any alien to this test. They would have no allies among Christians if they simply tried to take control. However, you would probably presume that they would try to pretend to be God. However, we know our God and we also know what a false prophet is. The standard of criticism would be so immense that no one but God could live up to it, and as a result they would have shot effectively themselves in the foot.
On the other hand, if it is presumed a benefit, it could be to "further man's spiritual quest." However, there is nothing to say that Christianity is the true goal and our "spiritual quest" would be no less an answer to that alien intent than anyone else's. The final possibility is they may just be evangelizing the things they believe. In that case, they could be construed as angelic representatives of God or fellow Christians, if that is the case. In all of this, I see nothing which would definitively argues against Christianity and in either "harmful" case, the presumptive aliens would be left holding a grenade which is set to go off.
Moreover, I think it is a far more probable simple supposition to say that a man calling himself the "Son of God" would have been crucified under the authority of the Roman Proconsul of Judea. "Son of God" was one of Caesar's titles, and it could very well have been trumped up as sedition, especially if he had irritated the higher-ups in the major religion in the region and there were rumors of revolt going around. The Roman punishment, by the way, was none other than crucifixion. It is more logical to believe that an actual event happened which is the basis for the subsequent stories than to start
I must say, I'm surprised you stuck with it as long as you did. May the Lord look kindly upon you and continue to be gracious, and cheers and good luck to you as well.
You make the argument, if I am hearing you correctly, that it doesn't matter what happens to be written in the bible, it's having heavenly guidance in reading it and interpreting those words which counts.
Well, you seem to have the major point of the argument, but it is a little bit more nuanced than that. First, I wouldn't call it "bibliomancy" because we believe sorcery in any form is contrary to the Will of God. However, from a theosophic perspective it may actually seem to work like that and if that's your context, you work from the terms you know. I also didn't say that the "words do not matter." The words aren't just there for nothing, the message itself is contained in the words, but it can only be truly understood through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It probably apt to think of like as a code, as you suggested, even though it obviously isn't a mathematically definable transformation. Rather, the message is written in such a way that it appear "like foolishness" to anyone who is not reading it with the direction of the Holy Spirit. At best someone in such a situation will say "Christ is a philosopher with some good ideas," and at worst they will say "the entire book is on crack." In either case, they missed the inspired message, even if they can obviously read the "plain text."
On top of the guidance of the Spirit, there is also another, quite easily explainable, transformation which we must take into account. That is the "historical and grammatical context." There are times when Scripture is intended to be read as it is written and times when it is strongly couched in metaphor and parable, and this can be found by learning the grammatical structures of the language in which it is written and the time frame into which the Scripture was revealed. In doing so, we can find what the Holy Spirit is intending the Scripture to say to the people of then and to the people of today.
So what do I trust? An ancient book which it would be insane to believe was not fiddled with, quoting sources I have no reason to believe were really angels or divine voice and not self-serving alien intelligences who know how to electromagnetically trigger feelings of divine ecstasy so as to give commandments and advice which anybody can clearly in the big picture has had the opposite effect upon human society than it claims to intend?
The former objection could be a theoretical possibility, but I have much more reason to reject such an explanation than to accept it. Especially since I see His grace at work in my life.
The latter objection implies that the sense of those commandments is really what you think it is. It is written that "by the works of the Law, no man is justified," (Romans 3:20) and "all who relie on the works of the Law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10) That is because the Law has a different purpose and Lutherans recognize three uses of the Law:
1. The Law exists to "curb wickedness," which is done through the governments of this world. Basically, the use everyone can reason out.
2. It does not, however exist to increase righteousness, but as a "mirror" to reveal sin. Luther considered this the primary use.
3. When someone is saved, they are moved by God's grace to live Godly lives which glorify Him, even though they must continue to fight their sin until the resurrection. This is the "rule use."
None of these uses would imply that the intended effect on human society is anything less than a conviction of sin, not an attempt to create a perfect society. The Law brings us before the Lord with broken and contrite hearts, earnestly seeking His grace and forgiveness.
The commandments are indeed God's perfect Law, but the only one who
I hope you don't use the word "hubris" after saying that. . .;~)
One snark deserves another. My reply is, OMG hyperbole is such a lost art.
No worries. The internet is given to the making of assumptions we all later regret, text being the great limiter of communication that it is. I spent the last day regretting the angry tone in my previous post. Sorry about that.
No problem, it is perfectly understandable in light of my own slightly condescending tone.
Heretical? Well, there was clearly no desire to be heretical; these were all good, well-intentioned people. --My assumption was that if the minister were forced to review what he'd said, he'd either attempt to justify it through the kind of philosophical argument you just provided, or if he had the guts, he'd simply admit that he made a verbal gaff and take it back. --And I'd give it back, too, though I'd probably first say some infuriating thing about Freud. --Because really in this case, and despite all that fast dancing, it's the person making the promise who is most affected by it. I doubt the half-dozen people being confirmed at that ceremony were all philosophically and academically agile enough to create such a squirrelly logical escape hatch to, "I promise to believe". I mean, come on!
I'll grant that it is possible that he misspoke, although one would need to examine the Catholic confirmation liturgy to be sure. Not being one, I can't really attest, but I can come close given my own liturgy is largely reflective of pre-Trentine liturgy. The thing is, the confirmation is merely a ceremony and even if there is a gaff about the right form, the people still know from their catechism class what is really meant. I suspect that you have not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and would, therefore, not be in a position to judge whether people were equipped to judge this critically. My guess is that the CCC carries enough info to repudiate a real misunderstanding.
Why is it good? Are you implying that somebody is judging me? Here's a quick but important note: The people whose opinions I value most do not judge others. Judging people ALWAYS results from and resolves to Fear.
Yes, by all means, someone is judging you. I would think it is practically given that God is judging all of us, since He is the creator and defines our very purpose.
The bible is a wholly unreliable document, filled primarily with metaphor and having passed through the hands and influence of numerous agencies which well understood the power of religion to control and shape population behavior. Direct propaganda at best, and at worst, transcribed conversations via medium with entities who, honestly, could have been any kind of Ouija-board spirit with an agenda. There are enough creepy crawlies floating around today making all manner of wild claims. . . What makes the material in the bible any less suspect? Nobody was vetting that stuff.
Yeah, a nice strawman I'd say. If you knew much about Lutheran theology, however, I'd point out that this is the wrong direction. You cannot accept Scripture without first having faith in Christ.
I could, of course, "cop out" and use the tactic of saying "all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) But, it wouldn't be useful for this argument, because it is patently clear that recognizing this truth is rooted in faith in Jesus Christ. Since no one can confess faith in Christ without the Holy Spriit, you cannot believe the true teaching of Scripture apart from the direction of the Holy Spirit. As I said above, we come to Christ first and we find that Christ is the true heart of Scriptural teaching, which is why we accept Scripture as His inspired Word.
First of all, I note that you seem to have missed the fact that t
You may certainly revise it, but you would still be incorrect. I was there, I heard what was said, and I have a full enough background in religious thinking to understand what was meant. And "I promise to believe in Jesus Christ and accept him as my lord."?? There's simply no wiggle room there.
Good, since you know enough about religious thinking, I can doff my unwieldy -2 cursed clubs of restraint on using theological history and use the more powerful +25 cannons.
In the sense that you imply that them saying "we promise to believe" means, it would be totally out of line with any form of any non-heretical Christian teaching. The view implied might be found in a Pelagian outlook, which is predicated on the belief that man's ability to good is unaffected by the Fall, but that was soundly deemed heresy by the Church and was directly repudiated by Augustine in the 400s because it directly implies that someone can be saved by one's own merits apart from Jesus Christ's atoning work. Any orthodox Christian theology which uses such terms would have an implicit recognition that God's grace is already present sustaining their faith and therefore it is not something which can be viewed as a promise to create faith by one's own powers.
The facts of the history of Christianity eat up your criticism because it flatly denies what you are saying that they could possibly have meant by saying what they did. The only way any Christian group might have this sort of error in thinking is if they totally threw away both the Church Fathers and Scripture, since both of these concur on this point. Since you said priest and described a confirmation, I can only presume this was a Roman Catholic ceremony. Of all the theological traditions, Roman Catholic theology has a very strong recognition that God's grace is a seed that enables one to live faithfully and to cooperate with His Will. That terminology if it really was in that form, would therefore necessarily have the underlying presupposition that God's grace is present and evidenced in their hearts. To say anything less is to call the church you visited heretical. Considering that the Catholic Church is the one that Augustine called home, I would think it rather strange for them to suddenly become true Pelagians. Thomas Aquinas, after all, built his scholastic theology of the Summa Theologica on Augustine in large part.
No, you're mis-understanding me. I have no problem with faith. Heck, I believe in God, too. But my definition of God would appear alien to most and certainly has nothing to do with a bearded sociopath who lives in the sky. The false puzzle I am talking about is not based on faith. --I was referring directly to your convoluted wording in such lines as. ..
Yes, I did misunderstand your objections quite greatly. I apologize for that.
It is good that you believe in God. It may behoove you to read James 2:19, however. (Note, I'm suggesting this even though it runs the risk of complicating the discussion into what the distinction is between faith and fruits of faith)
"Faith is a creation of God, by His unmerited grace."? --When I break this down into its component parts, I read something which is heavily influenced by a deep lack of self-worth. Unmerited grace? How can it possibly be that some of God's creation is more worthy than another, or is it implied here that none of it is worthy? In either case. . Ugh. --And again what exactly is 'Grace' supposed to be? If we're just talking about the dictionary definition here, then why bring it up at all? --And why can I not have faith in something without it a) belonging to God, and b) being prettied up first by an emotionally charged adjective like 'Grace'? Double Ugh!
Let's start by saying that the spiritual standard of Christianity is a little more than simply correcting bad behavior, since Jesus Christ's own words have declared murder to
What I was saying is that you did not understand what you were hearing, not that you failed to remember it properly. Perhaps I failed to note my connotative meaning properly, which makes your first critique warranted. Perhaps I should revise it, in that case, to say to say that you failed to comprehend what was actually being meant.
As for my alleged "logical nonsense," what I said was perfectly reasonable although I am clearly not limiting myself to a naturalistic or materialistic perspective, as I noted. To attempt a deconstruction, what I am saying is that, that some people actually have faith in God, despite your incredulity of this fact. It is also true, then, that those who believe God do not view the study of God as a "false puzzle." If they did, they wouldn't be pursuing it.
Whether you believe in God or not, it is important to note that some people actually do believe in God and that they aren't "faking it" or "making believe." Considering that people were willing to be martyred for this faith, I think this is at least a fair assumption...
As for anything else, you seem to have already made up your mind regarding what Christianity is all about so, even though I would hope you changed your mind, you can do whatever floats your boat...
I think that you greatly misobserved the situation.
The Christian faith is specifically predicated on the fact that we are saved by grace through faith, not by our own works. If we "force ourselves" to believe something, it is a "work" and not faith. Such a false faith is termed a mere "intellectual acceptance" or a "plain belief."
Instead, faith is a creation of God, by His unmerited grace. Without the grace of God, there is no such thing as faith. God's grace is manifest through the Word and through the lives of the faithful and in many ways in nature, despite its imperfections. One cannot choose merely create that which is not there and were God's grace absent then faith would never exist.
Because we cannot "create faith" by our powers, however, it also cannot be a rationalistic construction. Human beings are fallible and if we placed our trust in only things we can reason, we would miss out on the facts that our reason cannot even begin to comprehend. Rather, the faith is the evidence of the unseen God's grace.
What exactly do you think we're doing by keeping faith? Are we trying to gain money? It is meaningless, and in death it helps nobody. The same is true of power. Is it an attempt to offset the eternal effects of death? No, afterlife would be meaningless if we didn't actually believe what our faith teaches. Rather, our trust is in the grace of God we've already seen manifested through His Living Word, Jesus Christ.
Far from teaching us "not to think," Christianity says we must "prove all things and hold on to that which is good." If it is being used in a way to curb thinking, it is being misused. In fact, our worship of God must include our thinking and our lives.
As is defined in the orthodox [Chalcedonian] Christian understanding, Jesus Christ is a single person with two coexisting and non-mixed natures: Divine and Human. Ontologically, this means Jesus is both 100% God and 100% Human with all the constituent (i.e. accidental) attributes that go along with it with the sole exception of sin, which was not original to humanity as God created it.
They mean:
Zechariah 9:9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an donkey, and upon a colt the foal of an donkey."
And Matthew 21:5 "Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an donkey, and a colt the foal of an donkey.
Although, if it is a "foal of a donkey," it is also a "donkey" which makes the suggestion of two donkeys a form of nitpicking rather than a counterclaim.
Preachers like to throw it around to scare people, especially into donating money (or helping churches out in other ways). Why keep your money and put any value your own time if the world is going to end soon? It's an easy way to control people.
Granted that "preterism") is a common modern historical-critical viewpoint, this is hardly the entire story.
Historically, the dominantly held viewpoint was what is referred to as "a-millennialism" or that "now is the non-literal millennial reign of Christ and final judgment will be at some unknown time in the future, so don't even bother worrying about it" which is still the official position of the Roman Catholic Church as well as some of the more traditional Christian denominations.
In addition the so-called "Left-behind" theology (technically called "Dispensational Premillennialism") was actually deemed a heretical viewpoint by numerous key theologians and it was still considered such until it was very recently revived in the late 1900s by a certain Reverend Darby in England.
Following Spinoza's logic here would be like saying the author of a book must be the book itself. We are effectively living in the pages of the book, so that all of our evidence can only come from the book itself and what the author chooses to reveal of Himself (both in describing the way we are created and in what He has chosen to reveal of Himself directly).
This is the basis of Judaic, Christian and Islamic theology, we operate on the understanding of what God has done and continues to do. For we Christians at least, the highest exposition of this fact is Paul's discourse on the Unknown God (agnostos theou) to the Athenians on Mars Hill.
Re:Aliens, ghosts, and gods never leave evidence .
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 1
Such a formulation is not even in the Bible, so it is either a strawman argument or a misrepresentation of Christian teaching by fundamentalists. In either case it wasn't God who said it.
The closest formulae to this assertion would be those which say: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) or "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
With that said there is also the verse: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2)
You may want to talk to the guys at http://www.the-underdogs.org/, forgotten gems of gaming are their specialty and you might get some advertisement.
That is, after the slashdotting wears off... -_-;
There is a very small grain of truth to that meme because we live in a system where we only vote for an "Elector" in the electoral college, and they choose the candidate (or SHOULD) that they are party-bound to.
Ergo, if you vote for someone who loses that area, you do essentially lose that vote. Tyrrany by the college. Even though it is supposedly supposed to be to "balance out the majority", it only really silences the minority IMO.
Every company that recieved that email should do absolutely nothing and keep the "Master" and "Slave" terms to spite them. Then when they cannot buy computers because all vendors still use the terms, it will be their own fault...
Does the recipient get to choose what goes on the donated machines, or does the installed software default as Microsoft? You don't punish a company by giving them market share, so if anyone would rather have the donation, they should opt to install a non Microsoft system on the voucher machine and donate that instead. Then Microsoft will actually feel that chunk of cash evaporating, otherwise it just comes right back to them...
Actually, a much more simple (and efficient) way of converting the energy of the sun into food is to not produce plants to feed the animals, but to eat the plants ourselves.
Agreed, except for a few problems.
1) Plants produce much less protein than is necessary for normal human growth and survival. The only way to ensure that enough proteins are ingested is to eat lots more plants than most people can eat in one day, where even cheese added will greatly reduce this amount (however, some vegetarians avoid cheese altogether). Lacking these crucial proteins as many vegans do, their growth is known to be somewhat stunted as a result and other problems result. (well published studies)
2) Humans cannot extract as much energy from plant polysaccharides as they can from fatty meats. Only about 10% as much energy can be absorbed from plants as from meat. As a result, people need to eat more plants to make up for the lack of proteins and our inability to process polysaccharides efficiently as Evolution/God/whoever has made humans with an omnivorous digestive system. (biological fact)
So, maybe after extensive genetic engineering that turns humans into partial ruminants will people be able to thouroughly process plants, but not today.
In conclusion: Concept noble, implementation impossible.
P.S. I like the way meat tastes frankly. (genuine opinion)
Mandatory Disclaimer: These comments are not intended to offend anyone (i.e. PETA, et al.), but are my genuine position to which I am entitled. I am merely stating facts with which I have been presented in my experiences. Thusly, I cast this li'l comment off into the digital nexus.
Teller: "Swipe to make a withdrawl..."
Teller: "Hey, didn't you cash money here 3 minutes ago?"
Thief: "No, someone who looks like me cashed their $107 card."
Teller: "OK, swipe to make a withdrawl..."
Thief: $214
Card Co.: ($214)
Sorry, looks like another way crackers can steal money to me, just this time in a pocket sized form.
Slashdot Mirror
> The FOE project is GPLv3 and maintained by Sho Ho of BBG.
Even in your internets... FOE
No problem. If you noticed, I made a few slip-ups in some of my posts as well...
With that I could not agree more.
Apparently you haven't heard, but Protestants have a doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers." The only difference between an ordained pastor and the layperson in the Lutheran church is the Divinely ordained authority of Word and Sacrament. Even then, in extreme cases, even a layperson can distribute the Sacraments and every single Christian can and should preach and live the Word. Ironically, abuses of authority was one of the major issues in the Protestant Reformation. One interesting side note is that the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, of which I am a member, is governed congregationally (that is, by democratic consensus in the congregation) rather than episcopally (an elected bishopric). Even the call in the LCMS is from the congregation, not something handed out by the "higher ups." (what higher ups, the only hierarchy in the church beyond lay/pastoral distinction is man-made)
I am reasonably certain, although the Catholics had problems at the time of the Reformation, that even in the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox, although they don't expressly admit a "priesthood of all believers," they recognize the fact that their authority is not something which makes them any better than their congregants. The role of a Christian minister is a "servant leadership." Their authority demands that they serve their congregations, not that they lord it over. If they do not recognize this fact then they aren't doing their job right, period...
Moreover, as a part of dealing with the spiritual realm, we will invoke "flowery language" because this is the revealed teaching of the Holy Spirit. We're not deferring to a man, we are deferring to God.
Also, from what little I know of Islam, there is no central hierarchy... even so, I would defer to a Muslim for comment on anything more.
I concur with you about Goebbels, and certainly these sorts of things are very prone to being abused. However, I suspect that it is in human nature to presume the worst about someone with whom you have little affinity.
From what I read of the Catholic policies, their policy against contraception, namely "the pill," stems from the fact that contraceptives are not 100% successful and even a 1% chance of an abortion is
The "holographic insert" theory sounds very much like you were influenced by Scientology. To begin with, I do not make a definitive statement as to whether extraterrestrials exist or do not. Even so, I do think it absurd to suggest that they would create a religion, presumably Christianity since this is what we're discussing, in what amounts to a backwater planet with primitive technology without some motivation. What do they hope to gain by it? If, in the unlikely chance, they did do this it would either be a tool for subjugation or for human benefit.
In the case of subjugation, it would be absurd to promote a religion which teaches that each and every person is a child of God and that the true authority does not belong to any power in this universe except the God who created it. Moreover, Christ warns about false messiahs and deceiving prophets who would attempt to spread lies in His name, and there is no compelling reason that would lead us not to subject any alien to this test. They would have no allies among Christians if they simply tried to take control. However, you would probably presume that they would try to pretend to be God. However, we know our God and we also know what a false prophet is. The standard of criticism would be so immense that no one but God could live up to it, and as a result they would have shot effectively themselves in the foot.
On the other hand, if it is presumed a benefit, it could be to "further man's spiritual quest." However, there is nothing to say that Christianity is the true goal and our "spiritual quest" would be no less an answer to that alien intent than anyone else's. The final possibility is they may just be evangelizing the things they believe. In that case, they could be construed as angelic representatives of God or fellow Christians, if that is the case. In all of this, I see nothing which would definitively argues against Christianity and in either "harmful" case, the presumptive aliens would be left holding a grenade which is set to go off.
Moreover, I think it is a far more probable simple supposition to say that a man calling himself the "Son of God" would have been crucified under the authority of the Roman Proconsul of Judea. "Son of God" was one of Caesar's titles, and it could very well have been trumped up as sedition, especially if he had irritated the higher-ups in the major religion in the region and there were rumors of revolt going around. The Roman punishment, by the way, was none other than crucifixion. It is more logical to believe that an actual event happened which is the basis for the subsequent stories than to start
I must say, I'm surprised you stuck with it as long as you did. May the Lord look kindly upon you and continue to be gracious, and cheers and good luck to you as well.
Well, you seem to have the major point of the argument, but it is a little bit more nuanced than that. First, I wouldn't call it "bibliomancy" because we believe sorcery in any form is contrary to the Will of God. However, from a theosophic perspective it may actually seem to work like that and if that's your context, you work from the terms you know. I also didn't say that the "words do not matter." The words aren't just there for nothing, the message itself is contained in the words, but it can only be truly understood through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It probably apt to think of like as a code, as you suggested, even though it obviously isn't a mathematically definable transformation. Rather, the message is written in such a way that it appear "like foolishness" to anyone who is not reading it with the direction of the Holy Spirit. At best someone in such a situation will say "Christ is a philosopher with some good ideas," and at worst they will say "the entire book is on crack." In either case, they missed the inspired message, even if they can obviously read the "plain text."
On top of the guidance of the Spirit, there is also another, quite easily explainable, transformation which we must take into account. That is the "historical and grammatical context." There are times when Scripture is intended to be read as it is written and times when it is strongly couched in metaphor and parable, and this can be found by learning the grammatical structures of the language in which it is written and the time frame into which the Scripture was revealed. In doing so, we can find what the Holy Spirit is intending the Scripture to say to the people of then and to the people of today.
The former objection could be a theoretical possibility, but I have much more reason to reject such an explanation than to accept it. Especially since I see His grace at work in my life.
The latter objection implies that the sense of those commandments is really what you think it is. It is written that "by the works of the Law, no man is justified," (Romans 3:20) and "all who relie on the works of the Law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10) That is because the Law has a different purpose and Lutherans recognize three uses of the Law:
1. The Law exists to "curb wickedness," which is done through the governments of this world. Basically, the use everyone can reason out.
2. It does not, however exist to increase righteousness, but as a "mirror" to reveal sin. Luther considered this the primary use.
3. When someone is saved, they are moved by God's grace to live Godly lives which glorify Him, even though they must continue to fight their sin until the resurrection. This is the "rule use."
None of these uses would imply that the intended effect on human society is anything less than a conviction of sin, not an attempt to create a perfect society. The Law brings us before the Lord with broken and contrite hearts, earnestly seeking His grace and forgiveness.
The commandments are indeed God's perfect Law, but the only one who
One snark deserves another. My reply is, OMG hyperbole is such a lost art.
No problem, it is perfectly understandable in light of my own slightly condescending tone.
I'll grant that it is possible that he misspoke, although one would need to examine the Catholic confirmation liturgy to be sure. Not being one, I can't really attest, but I can come close given my own liturgy is largely reflective of pre-Trentine liturgy. The thing is, the confirmation is merely a ceremony and even if there is a gaff about the right form, the people still know from their catechism class what is really meant. I suspect that you have not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and would, therefore, not be in a position to judge whether people were equipped to judge this critically. My guess is that the CCC carries enough info to repudiate a real misunderstanding.
Yes, by all means, someone is judging you. I would think it is practically given that God is judging all of us, since He is the creator and defines our very purpose.
Yeah, a nice strawman I'd say. If you knew much about Lutheran theology, however, I'd point out that this is the wrong direction. You cannot accept Scripture without first having faith in Christ.
I could, of course, "cop out" and use the tactic of saying "all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) But, it wouldn't be useful for this argument, because it is patently clear that recognizing this truth is rooted in faith in Jesus Christ. Since no one can confess faith in Christ without the Holy Spriit, you cannot believe the true teaching of Scripture apart from the direction of the Holy Spirit. As I said above, we come to Christ first and we find that Christ is the true heart of Scriptural teaching, which is why we accept Scripture as His inspired Word.
First of all, I note that you seem to have missed the fact that t
Good, since you know enough about religious thinking, I can doff my unwieldy -2 cursed clubs of restraint on using theological history and use the more powerful +25 cannons.
In the sense that you imply that them saying "we promise to believe" means, it would be totally out of line with any form of any non-heretical Christian teaching. The view implied might be found in a Pelagian outlook, which is predicated on the belief that man's ability to good is unaffected by the Fall, but that was soundly deemed heresy by the Church and was directly repudiated by Augustine in the 400s because it directly implies that someone can be saved by one's own merits apart from Jesus Christ's atoning work. Any orthodox Christian theology which uses such terms would have an implicit recognition that God's grace is already present sustaining their faith and therefore it is not something which can be viewed as a promise to create faith by one's own powers.
The facts of the history of Christianity eat up your criticism because it flatly denies what you are saying that they could possibly have meant by saying what they did. The only way any Christian group might have this sort of error in thinking is if they totally threw away both the Church Fathers and Scripture, since both of these concur on this point. Since you said priest and described a confirmation, I can only presume this was a Roman Catholic ceremony. Of all the theological traditions, Roman Catholic theology has a very strong recognition that God's grace is a seed that enables one to live faithfully and to cooperate with His Will. That terminology if it really was in that form, would therefore necessarily have the underlying presupposition that God's grace is present and evidenced in their hearts. To say anything less is to call the church you visited heretical. Considering that the Catholic Church is the one that Augustine called home, I would think it rather strange for them to suddenly become true Pelagians. Thomas Aquinas, after all, built his scholastic theology of the Summa Theologica on Augustine in large part.
Yes, I did misunderstand your objections quite greatly. I apologize for that.
It is good that you believe in God. It may behoove you to read James 2:19, however. (Note, I'm suggesting this even though it runs the risk of complicating the discussion into what the distinction is between faith and fruits of faith)
Let's start by saying that the spiritual standard of Christianity is a little more than simply correcting bad behavior, since Jesus Christ's own words have declared murder to
What I was saying is that you did not understand what you were hearing, not that you failed to remember it properly. Perhaps I failed to note my connotative meaning properly, which makes your first critique warranted. Perhaps I should revise it, in that case, to say to say that you failed to comprehend what was actually being meant.
As for my alleged "logical nonsense," what I said was perfectly reasonable although I am clearly not limiting myself to a naturalistic or materialistic perspective, as I noted. To attempt a deconstruction, what I am saying is that, that some people actually have faith in God, despite your incredulity of this fact. It is also true, then, that those who believe God do not view the study of God as a "false puzzle." If they did, they wouldn't be pursuing it.
Whether you believe in God or not, it is important to note that some people actually do believe in God and that they aren't "faking it" or "making believe." Considering that people were willing to be martyred for this faith, I think this is at least a fair assumption...
As for anything else, you seem to have already made up your mind regarding what Christianity is all about so, even though I would hope you changed your mind, you can do whatever floats your boat...
I think that you greatly misobserved the situation.
The Christian faith is specifically predicated on the fact that we are saved by grace through faith, not by our own works. If we "force ourselves" to believe something, it is a "work" and not faith. Such a false faith is termed a mere "intellectual acceptance" or a "plain belief."
Instead, faith is a creation of God, by His unmerited grace. Without the grace of God, there is no such thing as faith. God's grace is manifest through the Word and through the lives of the faithful and in many ways in nature, despite its imperfections. One cannot choose merely create that which is not there and were God's grace absent then faith would never exist.
Because we cannot "create faith" by our powers, however, it also cannot be a rationalistic construction. Human beings are fallible and if we placed our trust in only things we can reason, we would miss out on the facts that our reason cannot even begin to comprehend. Rather, the faith is the evidence of the unseen God's grace.
What exactly do you think we're doing by keeping faith? Are we trying to gain money? It is meaningless, and in death it helps nobody. The same is true of power. Is it an attempt to offset the eternal effects of death? No, afterlife would be meaningless if we didn't actually believe what our faith teaches. Rather, our trust is in the grace of God we've already seen manifested through His Living Word, Jesus Christ.
Far from teaching us "not to think," Christianity says we must "prove all things and hold on to that which is good." If it is being used in a way to curb thinking, it is being misused. In fact, our worship of God must include our thinking and our lives.
As is defined in the orthodox [Chalcedonian] Christian understanding, Jesus Christ is a single person with two coexisting and non-mixed natures: Divine and Human. Ontologically, this means Jesus is both 100% God and 100% Human with all the constituent (i.e. accidental) attributes that go along with it with the sole exception of sin, which was not original to humanity as God created it.
They mean: Zechariah 9:9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an donkey, and upon a colt the foal of an donkey." And Matthew 21:5 "Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an donkey, and a colt the foal of an donkey. Although, if it is a "foal of a donkey," it is also a "donkey" which makes the suggestion of two donkeys a form of nitpicking rather than a counterclaim.
Granted that "preterism") is a common modern historical-critical viewpoint, this is hardly the entire story.
Historically, the dominantly held viewpoint was what is referred to as "a-millennialism" or that "now is the non-literal millennial reign of Christ and final judgment will be at some unknown time in the future, so don't even bother worrying about it" which is still the official position of the Roman Catholic Church as well as some of the more traditional Christian denominations.
In addition the so-called "Left-behind" theology (technically called "Dispensational Premillennialism") was actually deemed a heretical viewpoint by numerous key theologians and it was still considered such until it was very recently revived in the late 1900s by a certain Reverend Darby in England.
Following Spinoza's logic here would be like saying the author of a book must be the book itself. We are effectively living in the pages of the book, so that all of our evidence can only come from the book itself and what the author chooses to reveal of Himself (both in describing the way we are created and in what He has chosen to reveal of Himself directly).
This is the basis of Judaic, Christian and Islamic theology, we operate on the understanding of what God has done and continues to do. For we Christians at least, the highest exposition of this fact is Paul's discourse on the Unknown God (agnostos theou) to the Athenians on Mars Hill.
Such a formulation is not even in the Bible, so it is either a strawman argument or a misrepresentation of Christian teaching by fundamentalists. In either case it wasn't God who said it.
The closest formulae to this assertion would be those which say: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) or "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
With that said there is also the verse: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2)
Hell is mainly an invention of the Church to make their "sheep" more docile.It was hardly invented by Medieval Christian theology. In addition to the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and "consuming fire" which Jesus speaks of, Pharisaic Judaism affords enough Hellish theology of its own. The first and most simple is the "place where all dead go," known as Sheol. The second, most closely related to the Christian understanding is . In fact, it was metaphorically derived from a valley where Moloch worshipers sacrificed children and which in Jesus' day was a garbage dump with real burning fires. In the Greek texts of the New Testament, Gehenna is literally transliterated and Sheol is translated as "Hades." Finally, Hades is thrown into the "lake of fire" with the Devil, completing the full Hell theology. Now, I will grant that the term itself derives from the Vikings, but Hell as a concept can be directly traced to the Hebrew Gehenna.
You may want to talk to the guys at http://www.the-underdogs.org/, forgotten gems of gaming are their specialty and you might get some advertisement. That is, after the slashdotting wears off... -_-;
There is a very small grain of truth to that meme because we live in a system where we only vote for an "Elector" in the electoral college, and they choose the candidate (or SHOULD) that they are party-bound to.
Ergo, if you vote for someone who loses that area, you do essentially lose that vote. Tyrrany by the college. Even though it is supposedly supposed to be to "balance out the majority", it only really silences the minority IMO.
Every company that recieved that email should do absolutely nothing and keep the "Master" and "Slave" terms to spite them. Then when they cannot buy computers because all vendors still use the terms, it will be their own fault...
Does the recipient get to choose what goes on the donated machines, or does the installed software default as Microsoft? You don't punish a company by giving them market share, so if anyone would rather have the donation, they should opt to install a non Microsoft system on the voucher machine and donate that instead. Then Microsoft will actually feel that chunk of cash evaporating, otherwise it just comes right back to them...
Personality transplant, eh? So that's why that doll is trying to kill me!
Then someone will just start "GNUogle," the Open Source search engine!
Agreed, except for a few problems.
1) Plants produce much less protein than is necessary for normal human growth and survival. The only way to ensure that enough proteins are ingested is to eat lots more plants than most people can eat in one day, where even cheese added will greatly reduce this amount (however, some vegetarians avoid cheese altogether). Lacking these crucial proteins as many vegans do, their growth is known to be somewhat stunted as a result and other problems result. (well published studies)
2) Humans cannot extract as much energy from plant polysaccharides as they can from fatty meats. Only about 10% as much energy can be absorbed from plants as from meat. As a result, people need to eat more plants to make up for the lack of proteins and our inability to process polysaccharides efficiently as Evolution/ God
So, maybe after extensive genetic engineering that turns humans into partial ruminants will people be able to thouroughly process plants, but not today.
In conclusion: Concept noble, implementation impossible.
P.S. I like the way meat tastes frankly. (genuine opinion)
Mandatory Disclaimer: These comments are not intended to offend anyone (i.e. PETA, et al.), but are my genuine position to which I am entitled. I am merely stating facts with which I have been presented in my experiences. Thusly, I cast this li'l comment off into the digital nexus.
Sorry, 0 hrs sleep = no >br<...
Now in human readable form:
Teller: "Swipe to make a withdrawl..."
>3 minutes later<
Teller: "Hey, didn't you cash money here 3 minutes ago?"
Thief: "No, someone who looks like me cashed their $107 card."
Teller: "OK, swipe to make a withdrawl..."
Thief: $214 Card Co.: ($214)
Sorry, looks like another way crackers can steal money to me, just this time in a pocket sized form.
Teller: "Swipe to make a withdrawl..." Teller: "Hey, didn't you cash money here 3 minutes ago?" Thief: "No, someone who looks like me cashed their $107 card." Teller: "OK, swipe to make a withdrawl..." Thief: $214 Card Co.: ($214) Sorry, looks like another way crackers can steal money to me, just this time in a pocket sized form.
Why does this sound like Tom Clancy's: Netforce?