(I really need the Jeff Foxworthy voice for this one.)


5. Forgiveness

If your potential spouse cannot forgive your past mistakes
in dealing with them (and reminds you, when you make a new
mistake, of your past "forgiven" mistakes) this might be an
indication that your potential spouse ain't.

Please note that this cuts both ways since YOU cannot
expect forgiveness without granting it yourself.

Commentary:

Humans are fallible. _ALL_ humans are fallible. Deal with
it. (It's also part of the "fun" of being human.) This
one factor should teach tolerance and leniency.

It's also useful in teaching some humility.

If you are intolerant of other's errors do not expect
leniency for your own.

Corollary:

If you don't make mistakes then you should be either a nun
or a priest. :-) :-)


(I hope you realize some of this is fun, taking various pet
peeves and exaggerating them all out of proportion.)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:59:33 GMT,
rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message news:slrnbl138d.rne.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... (I really need the Jeff Foxworthy voice for this one.) 5. Forgiveness If your potential spouse cannot forgive your past mistakes in dealing with them (and reminds you, when you make a new mistake, of your past "forgiven" mistakes) this might be an indication that your potential spouse ain't. Please note that this cuts both ways since YOU cannot expect forgiveness without granting it yourself. Commentary: Humans are fallible. _ALL_ humans are fallible. Deal with it. (It's also part of the "fun" of being human.) This one factor should teach tolerance and leniency. It's also useful in teaching some humility. If you are intolerant of other's errors do not expect leniency for your own. Corollary: If you don't make mistakes then you should be either a nun or a priest. :-) :-) (I hope you realize some of this is fun, taking various pet peeves and exaggerating them all out of proportion.) -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown And I thought molesting little altar boys was a mistake! Silly me.

It is. Have you gone to confession?
rg

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbl23j8.uh6.tony@callisto.jtan.com... On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:59:33 GMT, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message news:slrnbl138d.rne.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... (I really need the Jeff Foxworthy voice for this one.) 5. Forgiveness If your potential spouse cannot forgive your past mistakes in dealing with them (and reminds you, when you make a new mistake, of your past "forgiven" mistakes) this might be an indication that your potential spouse ain't. Please note that this cuts both ways since YOU cannot expect forgiveness without granting it yourself. Commentary: Humans are fallible. _ALL_ humans are fallible. Deal with it. (It's also part of the "fun" of being human.) This one factor should teach tolerance and leniency. It's also useful in teaching some humility. If you are intolerant of other's errors do not expect leniency for your own. Corollary: If you don't make mistakes then you should be either a nun or a priest. :-) :-) (I hope you realize some of this is fun, taking various pet peeves and exaggerating them all out of proportion.) -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown And I thought molesting little altar boys was a mistake! Silly me. It is. Have you gone to confession? rg -Tony -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's
time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Nope. Why should I? I am not Catholic.

rg

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:33:19 GMT,
rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnbl23j8.uh6.tony@callisto.jtan.com... On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:59:33 GMT, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message news:slrnbl138d.rne.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g...>> (I really need the Jeff Foxworthy voice for this one.)>>> 5. Forgiveness>> If your potential spouse cannot forgive your past mistakes> in dealing with them (and reminds you, when you make a new> mistake, of your past "forgiven" mistakes) this might be an> indication that your potential spouse ain't.>> Please note that this cuts both ways since YOU cannot> expect forgiveness without granting it yourself.>> Commentary:>> Humans are fallible. _ALL_ humans are fallible. Deal with> it. (It's also part of the "fun" of being human.) This> one factor should teach tolerance and leniency.>> It's also useful in teaching some humility.>> If you are intolerant of other's errors do not expect> leniency for your own.>> Corollary:>> If you don't make mistakes then you should be either a nun> or a priest. :-) :-)>>> (I hope you realize some of this is fun, taking various pet> peeves and exaggerating them all out of proportion.)>> --> Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/> "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is> the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown And I thought molesting little altar boys was a mistake! Silly me. It is. Have you gone to confession? rg -Tony -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information. Nope. Why should I? I am not Catholic.

I sort of had that figured out. Catholics generally respect their
priests.
rg

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

rg wrote: Tony Miller wrote: rg said: And I thought molesting little altar boys was a mistake! Silly me. It is. Have you gone to confession? Nope. Why should I? I am not Catholic.

Y'know, I *was* expecting to find the basic "rule #5" shredded
by now rather than watch you two go at it w/ tacnukes at 20
paces.

*SIGH*

It's like... irrelevant. No comments? No sniping at my
phrasing? No pointing out that I'm wrong, that I was too
general?

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown

Jack C Lipton wrote:

<snip>
Y'know, I *was* expecting to find the basic "rule #5" shredded by now rather than watch you two go at it w/ tacnukes at 20 paces. *SIGH* It's like... irrelevant. No comments? No sniping at my phrasing? No pointing out that I'm wrong, that I was too general?


LOL

I found one of the more reasonable of your rules and forbore to comment.

I'll add another corollary, though.

Don't go looking for offence where none is intended. Despite your feelings
your spouse may not have done anything which requires him or her to be
forgiven.

Tai

Tai wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Y'know, I *was* expecting to find the basic "rule #5" shredded by now rather than watch you two go at it w/ tacnukes at 20 paces. *SIGH* It's like... irrelevant. No comments? No sniping at my phrasing? No pointing out that I'm wrong, that I was too general? LOL I found one of the more reasonable of your rules and forbore to comment.

Aw, shucks, silence is ASSENT? Damn!

I guess I'm not far enough along in my differentiation
since I was hoping to hear someone say "cool". Having
Tony and rg go at an off-hand remark I guess should let
me know it was read and, well, tolerated.
I'll add another corollary, though. Don't go looking for offence where none is intended. Despite your feelings your spouse may not have done anything which requires him or her to be forgiven.

Thank you, that one belongs, even though I'm often guilty
of it. A useful lesson.

It's like "Never assume malice in an act adequately
explained by ignorance"... which, I suspect, is how many
women tolerate their husbands. :-)

(Hence the communication rule, to attempt to correct
the problem of ignorance.)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbl2l2e.uh6.tony@callisto.jtan.com... On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:33:19 GMT, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnbl23j8.uh6.tony@callisto.jtan.com... On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:59:33 GMT, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message > news:slrnbl138d.rne.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... >> >> (I really need the Jeff Foxworthy voice for this one.) >> >> >> 5. Forgiveness >> >> If your potential spouse cannot forgive your past mistakes >> in dealing with them (and reminds you, when you make a new >> mistake, of your past "forgiven" mistakes) this might be an >> indication that your potential spouse ain't. >> >> Please note that this cuts both ways since YOU cannot >> expect forgiveness without granting it yourself. >> >> Commentary: >> >> Humans are fallible. _ALL_ humans are fallible. Deal with >> it. (It's also part of the "fun" of being human.) This >> one factor should teach tolerance and leniency. >> >> It's also useful in teaching some humility. >> >> If you are intolerant of other's errors do not expect >> leniency for your own. >> >> Corollary: >> >> If you don't make mistakes then you should be either a nun >> or a priest. :-) :-) >> >> >> (I hope you realize some of this is fun, taking various pet >> peeves and exaggerating them all out of proportion.) >> >> -- >> Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | > http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ >> "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is >> the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown > > And I thought molesting little altar boys was a mistake! > > Silly me. It is. Have you gone to confession? > rg -Tony -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence,
it's time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter
weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information. Nope. Why should I? I am not Catholic. I sort of had that figured out. Catholics generally respect their priests. rg -Tony

Yes, I have noticed that, Tony. My MIL is Catholic and she thinks the
current molestation lawsuits are simply people wanting money. She doesn't
believe that any priests have ever molested anyone.

rg

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbl2n2r.v8b.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Tai wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Y'know, I *was* expecting to find the basic "rule #5" shredded by now rather than watch you two go at it w/ tacnukes at 20 paces. *SIGH* It's like... irrelevant. No comments? No sniping at my phrasing? No pointing out that I'm wrong, that I was too general? LOL I found one of the more reasonable of your rules and forbore to comment. Aw, shucks, silence is ASSENT? Damn! I guess I'm not far enough along in my differentiation since I was hoping to hear someone say "cool". Having Tony and rg go at an off-hand remark I guess should let me know it was read and, well, tolerated. I'll add another corollary, though. Don't go looking for offence where none is intended. Despite your feelings your spouse may not have done anything which requires him or her to be forgiven. Thank you, that one belongs, even though I'm often guilty of it. A useful lesson. It's like "Never assume malice in an act adequately explained by ignorance"... which, I suspect, is how many women tolerate their husbands. :-) (Hence the communication rule, to attempt to correct the problem of ignorance.) -- Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net |
http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Unknown

:) I just love to pick with religious folks. Especially Catholics. They are
so defensive and yet so ....ignorant of even their own brand of religion!

rg

"rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9%d4b.18232$Pn6.14369@twister.austin.rr.com.. .

[] :) I just love to pick with religious folks. Especially Catholics. They
are so defensive and yet so ....ignorant of even their own brand of religion!

That is often true, but not always. I, for example, am a Catholic who knows
a great deal about religion in general and mine in particular. Be careful
with those generalizations.

C'mon give me a Bible quiz, I dare ya. <g>

Jayne

"rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8mr4b.7989$jt.393896@twister.austin.rr.com... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:biteoo$cpr5m$2@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
C'mon give me a Bible quiz, I dare ya. <g> Jayne :) Of the four Gospels; how many mention the virgin birth?

2, Matthew and Luke.
How long after Jesus' death was the first Gospel written? Which Gospel was that?

Most scholars agree that Mark was the first Gospel written. Some early
writings indicate that it was written after the death of Peter This was
most likely during the Neronian persecution of 64, 65. Internal evidence
(cf. ch 13) indicates that it was written before the Jewish War 66-70.
Therefore it was probably written sometime around 67 AD. The death of Jesus
was around 30 AD which means the writing of the first Gospel was around 35 -
40 years later.
Of all the Gospel writers, how many lived during Jesus life and how many may have actually known him?

Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, i.e. lived during his life and
knew him. Mark first appears in the book of Acts. Mark lived in Jerusalem
at the right time so might have met Jesus. Luke implies that he did not
know Jesus because he says in the beginning of his Gospel that he is writing
it based on the accounts of eye-witnesses. Luke could have been born before
Jesus died but might not have.
Just a few off the top of my head. I am not a religious scholar by any stretch. But I do like to read scholarly dissenting postions.

OK. How'd I do? <g>

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bitkhg$co6t6$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8mr4b.7989$jt.393896@twister.austin.rr.com... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:biteoo$cpr5m$2@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... C'mon give me a Bible quiz, I dare ya. <g> Jayne :) Of the four Gospels; how many mention the virgin birth? 2, Matthew and Luke. How long after Jesus' death was the first Gospel written? Which Gospel
was that? Most scholars agree that Mark was the first Gospel written. Some early writings indicate that it was written after the death of Peter This was most likely during the Neronian persecution of 64, 65. Internal evidence (cf. ch 13) indicates that it was written before the Jewish War 66-70. Therefore it was probably written sometime around 67 AD. The death of
Jesus was around 30 AD which means the writing of the first Gospel was around
35 - 40 years later. Of all the Gospel writers, how many lived during Jesus life and how many may have actually known him? Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, i.e. lived during his life and knew him. Mark first appears in the book of Acts. Mark lived in
Jerusalem at the right time so might have met Jesus. Luke implies that he did not know Jesus because he says in the beginning of his Gospel that he is
writing it based on the accounts of eye-witnesses. Luke could have been born
before Jesus died but might not have. Just a few off the top of my head. I am not a religious scholar by any stretch. But I do like to read scholarly dissenting postions. OK. How'd I do? <g> Jayne

Pretty damn good! I won't pick on you! :)
I think though that one of my source books mentioned that even the Markian
text is suspect because it was written based upon a missing text called "Q".
All the other gospels are actually written from the Markian text with
enhancements and deletions. Unless my memory is incorrect, John the
disciple is not the author of John the Gospel though. I might be mistaken
about that though.

The fact that the very first gospel was written about 40 yrs after the life
of Jesus makes them very suspect to me. After all, they didn't make notes of
things back in those days. It was all verbal accounts, and from different
sources and you know what happens to a story when it gets passed around even
in a short period of time.

Luke was supposedly a Greek physician and was well acquainted with virgin
births in Greek literature.

One of the things that plagues me is what the genotype of Jesus might have
been. I personally don't believe in immaculate conceptions and virgin
births and have suspected for a long time that either Joseph or perhaps
Mary's priest was the father.

I believe the bibles' Jesus' are actually two. A historical one and a
mythical one. Makes for a good story though.


You did good. So here's another;

1. How many versions of the 10 Commandments are found in the bible?
2. How many versions of the creation myth are found in Genesis? What is the
difference between them?
3. Who stopped the movement of the sun and what is wrong with that story?


There is another that I wanted to ask you about a mistake in the geneology
of Joseph but I can't remember where it is. Do you happen to know?



"Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think
about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an
INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do,
every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten
special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of
these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and
burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer
and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ´til the end
of time...but he loves you." --George Carlin

rg

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:40:04 GMT,
rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>
"Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ´til the end of time...but he loves you." --George Carlin

Yup, I was just thinking... I would like to find a theologian to explain
this to me... I know. I'll pick a ... COMEDIAN!!! And not only a
comedian, one who specializes in vulgarity.

Now THAT's the guy I want defining religion for me.
rg

-Tony

PS: Who bets you get more of your theology from Frank Zappa :P

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E2t4b.24510$_B.1331083@twister.austin.rr.com. ..

[] I think though that one of my source books mentioned that even the Markian text is suspect because it was written based upon a missing text called
"Q". All the other gospels are actually written from the Markian text with enhancements and deletions.

That's not quite how the theory goes. It says that Matthew and Luke are
based on Mark and another missing source, a document (or possibliy oral
tradition) called Q. The people who first came up with the theory were
German so they used the first letter of "Quelle" the German word for
"source".
Unless my memory is incorrect, John the disciple is not the author of John the Gospel though. I might be mistaken about that though.

I've seen both theories.
The fact that the very first gospel was written about 40 yrs after the
life of Jesus makes them very suspect to me. After all, they didn't make notes
of things back in those days. It was all verbal accounts, and from different sources and you know what happens to a story when it gets passed around
even in a short period of time.

How accurate do you think a book about President Kennedy would be if it were
written today? That is the same time difference.
Luke was supposedly a Greek physician and was well acquainted with virgin births in Greek literature. One of the things that plagues me is what the genotype of Jesus might have been. I personally don't believe in immaculate conceptions and virgin births and have suspected for a long time that either Joseph or perhaps Mary's priest was the father.

Some Christians take the virgin birth literally and others don't. It isn't
an issue that I get excited about when people disagree with me.
I believe the bibles' Jesus' are actually two. A historical one and a mythical one. Makes for a good story though.

The terminology that a lot of theologians use to distinguish these ideas is
"historical Jesus" and "Christ of faith". But, in my experience, it isn't
usually a helpful distincition.
You did good. So here's another; 1. How many versions of the 10 Commandments are found in the bible?

I can think of two offhand. There is one in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy.
2. How many versions of the creation myth are found in Genesis? What is
the difference between them?

There are two. In the first one God creates plant before humans. In the
second it is the other way around. There are other differences too, in
terms of structure, vocabulary, etc, but I expect that's the one you are
looking for.
3. Who stopped the movement of the sun and what is wrong with that story?

Joshua. I'm not sure what answer you are looking for but what springs to my
mind is to wonder how they knew how much time had passed if the sun were
standing still.
There is another that I wanted to ask you about a mistake in the geneology of Joseph but I can't remember where it is. Do you happen to know?

There are geneologies given for Joseph in both Matthew 3 and Luke 1. They
are not consistent with each other.
"Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ´til the end of time...but he loves you." --George Carlin

This is a great illustration of a major problem with Christianity (and
probably many other religions). People learn rather silly, over-simplified
versions of the religion when they are children (not that I would teach
things like this to my children) and don't take it beyond that. They grow
up but their belief system does not grow with them. It is possible to be a
thinking adult and have religion be an important part of your life.
Unfortunately, it doesn't happen enough.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message: The fact that the very first gospel was written about 40 yrs after the life of Jesus makes them very suspect to me. After all, they didn't make notes of things back in those days. It was all verbal accounts, and from different sources and you know what happens to a story when it gets passed around even in a short period of time. How accurate do you think a book about President Kennedy would be if it were written today? That is the same time difference.

While I get your point, President Kennedy is a terrible example.

While "it was all verbal accounts" is not really true for the first
centuries either BCE or CE (take a look at the amount of documents still
surviving 2000 years later from the early roman principate) the fact is that
ignoring any question of his divinity, the significance of Jesus in his own
lifetime was known only in a small corner of the Empire, and was highly
questionable. That he's an incredibly important historical figure is
knowable only (A) in hindsight, or (B) through intuition/ revelation or
other non-empirical means.

Meanwhile, as of the 1960s, you have an incredibly documentary society in
terms of paper being produced, you have video and photographic recordings,
and most importantly, during the period of his political career, Kennedy's
national and world significance was undeniably obvious, and as a result he
was under a microscope that few people removed from similar positions have
ever been before or since.

Trajan

"rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X3w4b.6599$sl.377978@twister.austin.rr.com...

Let me ask you, Jayne. How are you knowledgeable on Biblical and religious matters? Are you educated or do you have a good quick reference guide at hand? :)

Well, I am educated. I have a Master of Divinity degree. But mainly it's
because I'm interested in religion so I am constantly talking to people
about it and learning new things. And I did look up some of the things you
asked about. I couldn't remember the details about how they calculated the
date for Mark, just that it was mid 60s. I've got books with that sort of
thing around.
(I should keep mine handy for discussions like this but after I read them
I put them away and they are not easy to get to in the middle of a
discussion. It's been several years since I read most all of Campbells books and also Spongs.)

I don't think that I've read more than excerpts of either author, but I know
what they are about because people keep referring to them.

Jayne

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:i9ga21-bh5.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message: The fact that the very first gospel was written about 40 yrs after the life of Jesus makes them very suspect to me. After all, they didn't
make notes of things back in those days. It was all verbal accounts, and
from different sources and you know what happens to a story when it gets passed around even in a short period of time. How accurate do you think a book about President Kennedy would be if it
were written today? That is the same time difference. While I get your point, President Kennedy is a terrible example. While "it was all verbal accounts" is not really true for the first centuries either BCE or CE (take a look at the amount of documents still surviving 2000 years later from the early roman principate) the fact is
that ignoring any question of his divinity, the significance of Jesus in his
own lifetime was known only in a small corner of the Empire, and was highly questionable. That he's an incredibly important historical figure is knowable only (A) in hindsight, or (B) through intuition/ revelation or other non-empirical means. Meanwhile, as of the 1960s, you have an incredibly documentary society in terms of paper being produced, you have video and photographic recordings, and most importantly, during the period of his political career, Kennedy's national and world significance was undeniably obvious, and as a result he was under a microscope that few people removed from similar positions have ever been before or since.

Fair enough. How about Anne Frank? She was an obscure person during her
lifetime who took on significance after her death. It isn't quite the same
time difference but around that range. Could someone write a reasonably
accurate book about Anne Frank today?

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:biu5nu$daefo$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message news:i9ga21-bh5.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message: > The fact that the very first gospel was written about 40 yrs after
the > life of Jesus makes them very suspect to me. After all, they didn't make > notes of things back in those days. It was all verbal accounts, and from > different sources and you know what happens to a story when it gets > passed around even in a short period of time. How accurate do you think a book about President Kennedy would be if
it were written today? That is the same time difference. While I get your point, President Kennedy is a terrible example. While "it was all verbal accounts" is not really true for the first centuries either BCE or CE (take a look at the amount of documents still surviving 2000 years later from the early roman principate) the fact is that ignoring any question of his divinity, the significance of Jesus in his own lifetime was known only in a small corner of the Empire, and was highly questionable. That he's an incredibly important historical figure is knowable only (A) in hindsight, or (B) through intuition/ revelation or other non-empirical means. Meanwhile, as of the 1960s, you have an incredibly documentary society
in terms of paper being produced, you have video and photographic
recordings, and most importantly, during the period of his political career,
Kennedy's national and world significance was undeniably obvious, and as a result
he was under a microscope that few people removed from similar positions
have ever been before or since. Fair enough. How about Anne Frank? She was an obscure person during her lifetime who took on significance after her death. It isn't quite the
same time difference but around that range. Could someone write a reasonably accurate book about Anne Frank today? Jayne

The better question is could 4 different writers write 4 different books
about her life.....and get the story straight!! without contradictions!!
even if the last 3 copied from the first one!!!



rg

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbl4rl1.em7.tony@callisto.jtan.com... On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:40:04 GMT, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: <Snip> "Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and
suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ´til the end of time...but he loves you." --George Carlin Yup, I was just thinking... I would like to find a theologian to explain this to me... I know. I'll pick a ... COMEDIAN!!! And not only a comedian, one who specializes in vulgarity. Now THAT's the guy I want defining religion for me. rg -Tony PS: Who bets you get more of your theology from Frank Zappa :P

There is a lot of truth to be found in strange places, Tony. Something you
haven't learned yet. And maybe never will.

Your in my killfile now.

rg

Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message While I get your point, President Kennedy is a terrible example. Fair enough. How about Anne Frank? She was an obscure person during her lifetime who took on significance after her death. It isn't quite the same time difference but around that range. Could someone write a reasonably accurate book about Anne Frank today?

I did get the point originally, but yeah, definitely a lot closer. The
analogy is never a going to be perfect one, just because of the differences
between antiquity and the modern era, but the point is nonetheless well
taken.

It *is* too bad that Jesus himself was not a letter-writer; it wasn't all
that unknown in the era, as we see from Paul (and, for that matter, from a
number of non-Christian historical figures like Philo.)

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 02:01:49 GMT,
rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnbl4rl1.em7.tony@callisto.jtan.com... On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:40:04 GMT, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: <Snip> "Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ´til the end of time...but he loves you." --George Carlin Yup, I was just thinking... I would like to find a theologian to explain this to me... I know. I'll pick a ... COMEDIAN!!! And not only a comedian, one who specializes in vulgarity. Now THAT's the guy I want defining religion for me. rg -Tony PS: Who bets you get more of your theology from Frank Zappa :P There is a lot of truth to be found in strange places, Tony. Something you haven't learned yet. And maybe never will. Your in my killfile now.

I'm glad to hear that. Now I can point and laugh at you behind your back.
:)
rg

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

In article <i9ga21-bh5.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus
<trajan@sfchat.org> wrote:
That he's an incredibly important historical figure is knowable only (A) in hindsight, or (B) through intuition/ revelation or other non-empirical means.

or

(C) Because he is.

Ted

In article <BZv4b.6597$sl.377204@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg
<jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's how Campbell used the word. But he also criticized the "Christian writers" for concretizing the myth...claiming it as their own and attempting to pass it off as an actual historical event when they knew damn good and well that it was not.

Uhm, if you were God, and you were going to make yourself part of
creation, and you wanted to get accepted as God and compete with the
religions existing at the time, mightn't you arrange things so you'd
fit the myths of the time?

Ted

In article <biu45o$d9o9j$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I don't think that I've read more than excerpts of either author, but I know what they are about because people keep referring to them.

I found Spong quite disappointing -- in essence, he denies God the
right to be God. I remember reading the first chapter or so of one of
his more recent books and saying to myself "what this guy is writing
disagrees with my personal experience -- he says such and such didn't
happen or that God doesn't work in such and such a way -- and all I can
say is, 'Yes He does, because either I've experienced it myself or I
know people personally very well who have.'" Although he is a bit
polemical, I found Luke Timothy Johnson much more intriguing -- he
poses a question every Christion (and their critics, rightfully) should
ponder: if you wanted to know and know about a living person (say, the
Queen of England, or, better yet, your spouse) what would be your best
source of informatioin about that person? -- the person him or
herself. You wouldn't bother much with things written second or
third-hand by others about that person, would you, if you could talk
directly to them?

The reason Christ is important (to anwer more directly another post) is
that he is not dead. In some ways, all else is bound up in that.
At times I think the most overlooked verse in the Gospels is "Lo, I am
with you always."

I sometimes ask a Christian: what would happen to your faith if every
copy of the Bible were to vanish, and all but, say, a paragraph or so
summary of the key events in it were to disappear from people's
memory?

If they can't answer that in essence it wouldn't make a bit of
difference then I have to wonder. (I am not saying that the Bible
isn't an important resource for prayer, nor that its loss wouldn't be
a terrible thing to thappen, but that it isn't essential. Remember
that in terms of percentage growth you can probably argue that the
Christian church grew fastest when the New Testament hadn't even been
written. And it wasn't just because of the reports passed on by word
of mouth.)

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:010920030029377194%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <BZv4b.6597$sl.377204@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: That's how Campbell used the word. But he also criticized the
"Christian writers" for concretizing the myth...claiming it as their own and
attempting to pass it off as an actual historical event when they knew damn good
and well that it was not. Uhm, if you were God, and you were going to make yourself part of creation, and you wanted to get accepted as God and compete with the religions existing at the time, mightn't you arrange things so you'd fit the myths of the time? Ted

If you knew what God would do , then you wouldn't know God.

rg

"rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com>" quoted George Carlin: [...] Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you."

The problem with this is that Mr Carlin has taken elements of several
different religions and mixed them together as if all these ideas were
believed by each and every religious person on the planet.

In the process, he's painted a silly charicature of Christian teaching,
and left out literally billions of religious people by completely
ignoring their beliefs. (Buddhists and Hindus, for example.)

So far as I am aware, there is no religion anywhere on the planet which
teaches the description he has provided. What he's done is taken the
most ridiculous things taught by a subset of very literalist groups and
mushed them all together. Just taking the highlights:

1) Few religions believe that God has the form of a man or lives in
any physical location.

2) Jewish teaching has that the 10 Commandments are only a subset of a
much longer list. Christians usually do not follow all the Jewish
laws, and do not believe they are binding laws. Christians would
usually say that the Jewish laws aimed at ethical and moral issues
constitute an well-considered set of rules from which one can derive
general principles for application to things not mentioned anywhere
in Scripture (computers aren't mentioned anywhere, and so must be
reasoned about).

3) So far as I know, no religion teaches that breaking any one of
the 10 Commandments just one time is enough to get you damned to
Hell. Further, opinions on the nature of the afterlife vary widely
among religious people. Universalists, for example, believe that
everybody goes to Heaven, no matter what they did on Earth.


The problem with attacking religion as Mr Carlin is that religion is
too wide a topic. If there are specific ideas you reject, then name
them and give reasons for your rejection. But to bundle many billions
of people together as if they all believe the same thing, and then to
try and blast them all with a one-paragraph attack on a lame strawman,
is just pointless.

*

I think George Carlin used to be lots funnier than he is now; he takes
himself *so* seriously. At the last HBO show he did, I think I may have
laughed two or three times in final half-hour.

I remember seeing an interview once with a comedian who said that he'd
done a show when Johnny Carson was in the audience, and that afterwards
Mr Carson had told him he had too much attitude and not enough humor.
He was saying stuff like "The sign said `service with a smile' -- yeah,
right." That depends entirely on delivery with attitude, because
there's no actual joke in it. Sad to say (he's one of my long-time
favorites), but I think Mr Carlin is just a shadow of his former self.

Maybe he should write a weekly humor column (not necessarily for
publication) for a year. Moreso than stand-up, written humor lives or
dies on the structure of the jokes, with no crutches to prop it up.


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"In South Florida, efforts to create a new artificial reef out of the
decommissioned navy ship Spiegel Grove go awry when the 510-foot
vessel, instead of sinking as planned, is elected lieutenant governor."
-- Dave Barry's 2002 in Review (May)

"rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com>" wrote, of Jesus and the Virgin Birth (later
corrections have been applied):
What I meant by the above is this. If he was a male, and we presume he was, then his genotype would be XY or XXY. Does this mean that God is XY? Does this mean that God is human?

You're a bit confused. The "H" in "Jesus H Christ" is for "haploid".

8^)


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Got mole problems? Call Avogadro, 602-1023."

"rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LKx4b.26598$_B.1377039@twister.austin.rr.com. .. "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:biu5nu$daefo$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...

[] Fair enough. How about Anne Frank? She was an obscure person during
her lifetime who took on significance after her death. It isn't quite the same time difference but around that range. Could someone write a reasonably accurate book about Anne Frank today? Jayne The better question is could 4 different writers write 4 different books about her life.....and get the story straight!! without contradictions!! even if the last 3 copied from the first one!!!

When I read 4 different newspaper articles about the same thing they differ
somewhat, even when they are based on the same press release. It seems to
me they differ about as much as the gospels differ from each other.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bj00fg$dqtfo$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "rg" <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:LKx4b.26598$_B.1377039@twister.austin.rr.com. .. "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:biu5nu$daefo$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... [] Fair enough. How about Anne Frank? She was an obscure person during her lifetime who took on significance after her death. It isn't quite the same time difference but around that range. Could someone write a
reasonably accurate book about Anne Frank today? Jayne The better question is could 4 different writers write 4 different books about her life.....and get the story straight!! without contradictions!! even if the last 3 copied from the first one!!! When I read 4 different newspaper articles about the same thing they
differ somewhat, even when they are based on the same press release. It seems to me they differ about as much as the gospels differ from each other. Jayne

Even when the last 3 copied from the first one? :)

rg

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:NQJ4b.445$Zr2.17589@iad-read.news.verio.net... "rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com>" quoted George Carlin: [...] Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you." The problem with this is that Mr Carlin has taken elements of several different religions and mixed them together as if all these ideas were believed by each and every religious person on the planet.

I recall the publication in our local newspaper a while back that reported
how many people in the US believed in a literal heaven and hell. I don't
remember the number but it was up there in the 90% bracket.

In the process, he's painted a silly charicature of Christian teaching, and left out literally billions of religious people by completely ignoring their beliefs. (Buddhists and Hindus, for example.)
I think he was probably speaking to a mostly Christian audience. I am not
trying to defend him but I think a comediene in the US is going to probably
know a little bit about his audience.

So far as I am aware, there is no religion anywhere on the planet which teaches the description he has provided. What he's done is taken the most ridiculous things taught by a subset of very literalist groups and mushed them all together. Just taking the highlights: 1) Few religions believe that God has the form of a man or lives in any physical location.

Again, I think that when he said what he did, he was speaking to a
predominately Christian audience and for them, God has the form of man since
man was made "in his image" and He does exist in a physical
place....somewhere. They just don't know the address.

2) Jewish teaching has that the 10 Commandments are only a subset of a much longer list. Christians usually do not follow all the Jewish laws, and do not believe they are binding laws. Christians would usually say that the Jewish laws aimed at ethical and moral issues constitute an well-considered set of rules from which one can derive general principles for application to things not mentioned anywhere in Scripture (computers aren't mentioned anywhere, and so must be reasoned about). 3) So far as I know, no religion teaches that breaking any one of the 10 Commandments just one time is enough to get you damned to Hell. Further, opinions on the nature of the afterlife vary widely among religious people. Universalists, for example, believe that everybody goes to Heaven, no matter what they did on Earth.

Christianity does teach breaking of a Commandment will get you a ticket to
hell. Notice the 1st Commandment.

The problem with attacking religion as Mr Carlin is that religion is too wide a topic. If there are specific ideas you reject, then name them and give reasons for your rejection. But to bundle many billions of people together as if they all believe the same thing, and then to try and blast them all with a one-paragraph attack on a lame strawman, is just pointless.

As you pointed out above, not all Christians beleive the same, therefore he
was only blasting the ones that believe in a literal heaven and hell.



rg

Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote: So far as I am aware, there is no religion anywhere on the planet which teaches the description he has provided. What he's done is taken the most ridiculous things taught by a subset of very literalist groups and mushed them all together. Just taking the highlights:

From the examples you gave, he's taken things from the lunatic fringe of
evangelical protestant christianity, as practiced in the US. There are
people like that; I've met a few of them. Fortunately, there aren't many of
them.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote: I sometimes ask a Christian: what would happen to your faith if every copy of the Bible were to vanish, and all but, say, a paragraph or so summary of the key events in it were to disappear from people's memory?

To borrow a line from Judaism, "Love thy neighbor, the rest is commentary."

Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
"rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com>" wrote, of Jesus and the Virgin Birth (latercorrections have been applied): What I meant by the above is this. If he was a male, and we presume he was, then his genotype would be XY or XXY. Does this mean that God is XY? Does this mean that God is human?You're a bit confused. The "H" in "Jesus H Christ" is for "haploid".

No, no. The "H" stands for Harold.

Harold?

Yeah, Harold. We've all heard it in the Lord's Prayer:

"Our Father, which Art in Heaven, Harold be Thy name..."

"Larry Kessler" <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote in message
news:uuc7lvol0i5rq09rr8tgmgf422hqocibkh@4ax.com... Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:"rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com>" wrote, of Jesus and the Virgin Birth (latercorrections have been applied): What I meant by the above is this. If he was a male, and we presume he was, then his genotype would be XY or XXY. Does this mean that God is XY? Does this mean that God is human?You're a bit confused. The "H" in "Jesus H Christ" is for "haploid". No, no. The "H" stands for Harold. Harold? Yeah, Harold. We've all heard it in the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, which Art in Heaven, Harold be Thy name..."

Huh. I always thought it was Howard.

rg

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:010920030054588691%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <biu45o$d9o9j$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: I don't think that I've read more than excerpts of either author, but I
know what they are about because people keep referring to them. I found Spong quite disappointing -- in essence, he denies God the right to be God. I remember reading the first chapter or so of one of his more recent books and saying to myself "what this guy is writing disagrees with my personal experience -- he says such and such didn't happen or that God doesn't work in such and such a way -- and all I can say is, 'Yes He does, because either I've experienced it myself or I know people personally very well who have.'" Although he is a bit polemical, I found Luke Timothy Johnson much more intriguing -- he poses a question every Christion (and their critics, rightfully) should ponder: if you wanted to know and know about a living person (say, the Queen of England, or, better yet, your spouse) what would be your best source of informatioin about that person? -- the person him or herself. You wouldn't bother much with things written second or third-hand by others about that person, would you, if you could talk directly to them?

I never found that he denied God the right to be God. Where did you get
that from?
What he says did not happen is the Virgin Birth. How can that square with
your experience? Were you there?

I know a few of those people that talk to God directly. And they claim that
God talks to them. They reside on the 5th floor at our local hospital.

Are you saying that you have conversations with God? And he talks back to
you?

The reason Christ is important (to anwer more directly another post) is that he is not dead. In some ways, all else is bound up in that. At times I think the most overlooked verse in the Gospels is "Lo, I am with you always."

Are you saying that Jesus is not dead or Christ (metaphorical) is not dead?

I sometimes ask a Christian: what would happen to your faith if every copy of the Bible were to vanish, and all but, say, a paragraph or so summary of the key events in it were to disappear from people's memory?

There would be many fewer preachers in the world and even fewer Christian
television shows.
If they can't answer that in essence it wouldn't make a bit of difference then I have to wonder. (I am not saying that the Bible isn't an important resource for prayer, nor that its loss wouldn't be a terrible thing to thappen, but that it isn't essential. Remember that in terms of percentage growth you can probably argue that the Christian church grew fastest when the New Testament hadn't even been written. And it wasn't just because of the reports passed on by word of mouth.) Ted

The reason for the growth of the early Christian church probably had more to
do with local politics of rebellion of the poor and the masses against the
Roman Emperor's fiscal policies as well as invasions and subjugations of
large groups of people. Remember how Columbus dealt with the Arawak Indians
on Hispanola. Either convert or die.

rg

In article <bj05c4$djm36$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
C'mon give me a Bible quiz, I dare ya. <g>

Who was the last person to see the resurrected Christ?
(warning: this is a trick question.)

Ted

In article <e%I4b.27108$_B.1455727@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg
<jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you knew what God would do , then you wouldn't know God.

I don't know about that. God has made some promises, hasn't He? If
God can't stick with His promises, He wouldn't be God would He? And if
He sticks with His promises, then we *do* know what He will do in some
circumstances.

But seriously, the argument that the virgin birth didn't happen because
there were virgin birth myths in a lot of other religions of the time is
pretty weak -- my argument in some ways is that all that actually
strengthens the credibility of the event. The moment you admit to a
*single* miracle -- and without the miracle of the resurrection there is
no Christianity -- you have no grounds for denying any miracle solely on
the grounds that it is a miracle and so you have to look for other
grounds. Let me expand on a brief comment I make in another recent
long response to you: there is no such thing as a small miracle. The
moment you admit that there are ways in which the spiritual world
(whatever you mean by that -- provided it is something real and not a
convenient name for a mental state or collection of ideas) interacts
with the physical world (the world physicists measure by their
instruments) then all bets are off -- if God can move enough electrons
or whatever else it takes in the brain to affect a person's thought
processes, for instance, then there is no limit to what God can do.

Personally, the miracles that truly amaze me are not the "flashy" ones
(to quote George Burns) like miraculous healings or prophecies or dreams
but the siimple flow of events in which there is no doubt that God has
arranged for some desired outcome and yet it is clear that an incredible
number of other events had to have preceded it. I know that the paths
of particular people have crossed mine at just the right time, that it
was something God arranged to happen, and I cannot with my feeble brain
see how He could have done it without exercising incredbily fine control
over the complete course of history! (I'm not talking about the cases,
of which I only know of two personally, where God openly commanded
someone to play a particular role in somebody else's life, but those
where things just seem to "fall into place")

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <e%I4b.27108$_B.1455727@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: If you knew what God would do , then you wouldn't know God. I don't know about that. God has made some promises, hasn't He? If God can't stick with His promises, He wouldn't be God would He? And if He sticks with His promises, then we *do* know what He will do in some circumstances.

He seems to have made inconsistent promises to different people and
different groups of people. Unless you are assuming that your
version of god is the only right one.
But seriously, the argument that the virgin birth didn't happen because there were virgin birth myths in a lot of other religions of the time is pretty weak -- my argument in some ways is that all that actually strengthens the credibility of the event. The moment you admit to a *single* miracle -- and without the miracle of the resurrection there is no Christianity -- you have no grounds for denying any miracle solely on the grounds that it is a miracle and so you have to look for other grounds. Let me expand on a brief comment I make in another recent long response to you: there is no such thing as a small miracle. The moment you admit that there are ways in which the spiritual world (whatever you mean by that -- provided it is something real and not a convenient name for a mental state or collection of ideas) interacts with the physical world (the world physicists measure by their instruments) then all bets are off -- if God can move enough electrons or whatever else it takes in the brain to affect a person's thought processes, for instance, then there is no limit to what God can do. Personally, the miracles that truly amaze me are not the "flashy" ones (to quote George Burns) like miraculous healings or prophecies or dreams but the siimple flow of events in which there is no doubt that God has arranged for some desired outcome and yet it is clear that an incredible number of other events had to have preceded it. I know that the paths of particular people have crossed mine at just the right time, that it was something God arranged to happen, and I cannot with my feeble brain see how He could have done it without exercising incredbily fine control over the complete course of history!

You've just sidled over to something that is a convenient name for
your mental state, which is not what you said you meant above by a
"miracle."

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:020920031653369770%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <bj05c4$djm36$5@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: C'mon give me a Bible quiz, I dare ya. <g> Who was the last person to see the resurrected Christ? (warning: this is a trick question.)

I would say Paul, but I don't know if it is a trick.

Jayne

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:020920031654463999%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <e%I4b.27108$_B.1455727@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: If you knew what God would do , then you wouldn't know God. I don't know about that. God has made some promises, hasn't He? If God can't stick with His promises, He wouldn't be God would He? And if He sticks with His promises, then we *do* know what He will do in some circumstances. But seriously, the argument that the virgin birth didn't happen because there were virgin birth myths in a lot of other religions of the time is pretty weak -- my argument in some ways is that all that actually strengthens the credibility of the event. The moment you admit to a *single* miracle -- and without the miracle of the resurrection there is no Christianity -- you have no grounds for denying any miracle solely on the grounds that it is a miracle and so you have to look for other grounds. Let me expand on a brief comment I make in another recent long response to you: there is no such thing as a small miracle. The moment you admit that there are ways in which the spiritual world (whatever you mean by that -- provided it is something real and not a convenient name for a mental state or collection of ideas) interacts with the physical world (the world physicists measure by their instruments) then all bets are off -- if God can move enough electrons or whatever else it takes in the brain to affect a person's thought processes, for instance, then there is no limit to what God can do. Personally, the miracles that truly amaze me are not the "flashy" ones (to quote George Burns) like miraculous healings or prophecies or dreams but the siimple flow of events in which there is no doubt that God has arranged for some desired outcome and yet it is clear that an incredible number of other events had to have preceded it. I know that the paths of particular people have crossed mine at just the right time, that it was something God arranged to happen, and I cannot with my feeble brain see how He could have done it without exercising incredbily fine control over the complete course of history! (I'm not talking about the cases, of which I only know of two personally, where God openly commanded someone to play a particular role in somebody else's life, but those where things just seem to "fall into place") Ted

I think I am going to put this up and watch some tennis now.
Take care, Ted.

rg

In article <bj38ka$elucn$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I would say Paul, but I don't know if it is a trick.

It could also be the author of Revelations or I John depending on how
you date those and how you interpret them.

The trick to the question comes if you don't limit yourself to the
timeframe of the Bible and what is recorded in it.

Ted

In article <jbhe3uhmiz.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
You've just sidled over to something that is a convenient name for your mental state, which is not what you said you meant above by a "miracle."

how so?

Ted

In article <PPb5b.4897$NM2.248506@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg
<jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
it simply does not happen.

What does not happen?

Ted

In article <3VL4b.11803$jt.566993@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg
<jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
Very interesting, Nancy. If you have the answers to these questions, I would love to read them.

Why? What value can they possibly have to you?

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <jbhe3uhmiz.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: You've just sidled over to something that is a convenient name for your mental state, which is not what you said you meant above by a "miracle." how so?

By referring to things that make you feel as if they couldn't have
happened without intervention (that is, that trigger a certain state
of mind in you) as miracles.

In article <lLd5b.257750$It4.121525@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug
Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
By referring to things that make you feel as if they couldn't have happened without intervention (that is, that trigger a certain state of mind in you) as miracles.

Doug, the rules of quantum physics state that *any* conceivable state
of matter that conserves matter and energy can follow any other state
-- only most are of vanishly small probability. So, by that logic,
there is no such thing as a miracle. The question is, is the unseen
participation of God in some sequence of events a *better* explanation,
taking into consideration a lot of other related data (such as what is
called the testimony of the Spirit) than any other explanation?

There are two errors one can make regarding miracles -- identifying
some event as a miracle when it isn't, or dismissing one that is as not
being one. In this day and age I think amongst educated people the
latter error the more likely, and sad, one than the former.

Ted

In article <PPb5b.4897$NM2.248506@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg
<jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
I view some people's affliction with religion the same way I do a child with a security blanket. Anything that threatens that security blanket is going to be rejected, regardless of how sensible it is.

You didn't read what I wrote then, did you?
Or, if you did, you didn't believe it.
You seemed to be an open-minded inquirer.
I guess I misinterpreted you.

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:020920032327512458%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <PPb5b.4897$NM2.248506@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: I view some people's affliction with religion the same way I do a child
with a security blanket. Anything that threatens that security blanket is
going to be rejected, regardless of how sensible it is. You didn't read what I wrote then, did you? Or, if you did, you didn't believe it. You seemed to be an open-minded inquirer. I guess I misinterpreted you. Ted

Some people have religion, Ted. And some people; religion has them.

Take care,

rg

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <lLd5b.257750$It4.121525@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: By referring to things that make you feel as if they couldn't have happened without intervention (that is, that trigger a certain state of mind in you) as miracles. Doug, the rules of quantum physics state that *any* conceivable state of matter that conserves matter and energy can follow any other state -- only most are of vanishly small probability. So, by that logic, there is no such thing as a miracle.

Although I've yet to see a golfball instantaneously move 3 feet.
The question is, is the unseen participation of God in some sequence of events a *better* explanation, taking into consideration a lot of other related data (such as what is called the testimony of the Spirit) than any other explanation?

Hey, you are the one who made the following proviso:
(whatever you mean by that -- provided it is something real and not a convenient name for a mental state or collection of ideas)

I'm just trying to call you on not following this proviso.
There are two errors one can make regarding miracles -- identifying some event as a miracle when it isn't, or dismissing one that is as not being one. In this day and age I think amongst educated people the latter error the more likely, and sad, one than the former.

Well, I've yet to have an opportuntity to make either error. So I
suppose if there is a god he doesn't _want_ me to believe in miracles!

Doug

In article <uwm5b.161031$2x.45441@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug
Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Although I've yet to see a golfball instantaneously move 3 feet.
Nor have I.
But it wouldn't change my view of the universe one bit were I to.
The question is, is the unseen participation of God in some sequence of events a *better* explanation, taking into consideration a lot of other related data (such as what is called the testimony of the Spirit) than any other explanation? Hey, you are the one who made the following proviso: (whatever you mean by that -- provided it is something real and not a convenient name for a mental state or collection of ideas) I'm just trying to call you on not following this proviso.
Bad communication on my part.
I was trying to give some definition to the term "spiritual" that
indicates for me it is a quite different term, for instance, than
"good", or "beauty" or "love" or even "emotion." I know there is
something real to which that term applies -- real in the sense that
"good" or "love" are not real -- and the question here is not
specifically whether I am right about that but whether that something
can interact with the physical world, including our brains. *Any* such
interaction I define as a miracle -- for it means that something is
going on outside the normal realm of conventional science.

One way to deny the reality of the spiritual is to deny any such
interactions occur by explaining away all observations of them in one
way or another. Now, everyone *should* have a healthy skepticism on
such matters -- but I don't see that as what you are doing. I think
You are trying to catch me in a word play and I won't bite. Well, I've yet to have an opportuntity to make either error. So I suppose if there is a god he doesn't _want_ me to believe in miracles!

My wife gave me a very good analogy for talking about observing the
action of spiritual forces (miracles) in one's life. Around here in
the spring there are a lot of radiant crabapple trees -- we have two in
our front yard and if I look up and down the street at the right time of
year I can easily see a half dozen others. I never particularly paid
attention to them, but once my wife drew my attention to them (with some
remark like, "everyone seems to have planted a radiant crab") wherever
I look when driving around in the spring I seem to see them now. I
know that most of them had been there for years -- but I never noticed
them. Seeing God at work in one's life is like that -- once you notice
it, you seem to notice it all over the place. But I also have a hunch
-- it seems to me that once you *do* start to notice it, God obliges by
planting more trees that truly weren't there.

Ted

In article <f5l5b.21$g56.5@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg
<jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some people have religion, Ted. And some people; religion has them.

Would you care to expand on that in simple terms? I don't think you
meant it as a compliment and that tends to annoy me.
(How about, for starters, using something that talks about first-hand
and second-hand faith to see if we understand each other at all.)

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <uwm5b.161031$2x.45441@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Although I've yet to see a golfball instantaneously move 3 feet. Nor have I. But it wouldn't change my view of the universe one bit were I to. The question is, is the unseen participation of God in some sequence of events a *better* explanation, taking into consideration a lot of other related data (such as what is called the testimony of the Spirit) than any other explanation? Hey, you are the one who made the following proviso: (whatever you mean by that -- provided it is something real and not a convenient name for a mental state or collection of ideas) I'm just trying to call you on not following this proviso. Bad communication on my part. I was trying to give some definition to the term "spiritual" that indicates for me it is a quite different term, for instance, than "good", or "beauty" or "love" or even "emotion." I know there is something real to which that term applies -- real in the sense that "good" or "love" are not real -- and the question here is not specifically whether I am right about that but whether that something can interact with the physical world, including our brains. *Any* such interaction I define as a miracle -- for it means that something is going on outside the normal realm of conventional science. One way to deny the reality of the spiritual is to deny any such interactions occur by explaining away all observations of them in one way or another. Now, everyone *should* have a healthy skepticism on such matters -- but I don't see that as what you are doing. I think You are trying to catch me in a word play and I won't bite.

Not at all. You seemed to contradict yourself, and I was pointing it
out.
Well, I've yet to have an opportuntity to make either error. So I suppose if there is a god he doesn't _want_ me to believe in miracles! My wife gave me a very good analogy for talking about observing the action of spiritual forces (miracles) in one's life. Around here in the spring there are a lot of radiant crabapple trees -- we have two in our front yard and if I look up and down the street at the right time of year I can easily see a half dozen others. I never particularly paid attention to them, but once my wife drew my attention to them (with some remark like, "everyone seems to have planted a radiant crab") wherever I look when driving around in the spring I seem to see them now. I know that most of them had been there for years -- but I never noticed them. Seeing God at work in one's life is like that -- once you notice it, you seem to notice it all over the place. But I also have a hunch -- it seems to me that once you *do* start to notice it, God obliges by planting more trees that truly weren't there.

My remark stands. If he exists, he isn't interested in having me notice.
Which is fine with me, frankly.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:030920031853440605%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <f5l5b.21$g56.5@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: Some people have religion, Ted. And some people; religion has them. Would you care to expand on that in simple terms? I don't think you meant it as a compliment and that tends to annoy me. (How about, for starters, using something that talks about first-hand and second-hand faith to see if we understand each other at all.) Ted
If you feel annoyed, then go ahead and be annoyed. I don't feel responsible
for how you feel.

I think it is already in simple terms. The fact that you feel annoyed tells
me that you do understand it, but you are looking for an argument.

No argument needed here. You either have religion and have control of it, or
it has you and control over you.

rg

In article <b7x5b.5796$sm4.74259@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg
<jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
No argument needed here. You either have religion and have control of it, or it has you and control over you.

I don't use the word "religion" with that kind of a syntax, so, no, I
don't understand what you are trying to say.

One may belong to a religous organization and ascribe to some beliefs
expressed by that organization and practice some practices it has
adopted, formally or informally -- and one may do so with varying
amounts of deliberated choice in all that. But to say "I have a
religion and control over it" or that a religion "has control over me"
brushes all the nuances of that aside and only serves to close off
discussion. And, when you get down to it, neither statement is
meaningful.

But then, I don't think you want to have a meaningful discussion -- I
think you just want to debate for debate's sake.

I suspect you think religion has me. Am I right?
And, if so, which one?

Ted

In article <Rov5b.344513$o%2.157946@sccrnsc02>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not at all. You seemed to contradict yourself, and I was pointing it out.

Oh, I'm always contradicting myself.
It keeps people on their toes.

Ted

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:030920032320314889%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <b7x5b.5796$sm4.74259@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg <jobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: No argument needed here. You either have religion and have control of
it, or it has you and control over you. I don't use the word "religion" with that kind of a syntax, so, no, I don't understand what you are trying to say. One may belong to a religous organization and ascribe to some beliefs expressed by that organization and practice some practices it has adopted, formally or informally -- and one may do so with varying amounts of deliberated choice in all that. But to say "I have a religion and control over it" or that a religion "has control over me" brushes all the nuances of that aside and only serves to close off discussion. And, when you get down to it, neither statement is meaningful. But then, I don't think you want to have a meaningful discussion -- I think you just want to debate for debate's sake. I suspect you think religion has me. Am I right? And, if so, which one? Ted

If you truly believe that I don't want to have a meaningful discussion, and
I just want to debate for debate's sake, then why do you ask me your
question in your last line? Are you not "wanting" to debate the debater?

It appears to me that the religion you subscribe to .....*has you*...in my
opinion. It causes you to use the language of the poets; that which is
"otherworldly", unverifiable, and unaccountable.

rg

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
listening to a Bach organ-piece with all stops pulled out feels like,

Let's hope not _all_ the stops. That's a bit garish, even for me.