Name: Fire Escape #65 Date: Sat Mar 04 17:50:36 1989 Prove what without the Bible? There can be no proof of specific beliefs in regards to afterlife, because no one has been able to take a video camera with them to the other side to document the truth of the matter. There is a lot of inductive proof for the existence of the spiritual, especially a deity. But these things can prove nothing of his attributes and his relationship to us. This is where special revelation is needed. And that much we have to accept on the basis of intelligent faith. Many people have faith in the Bible's accounts of God's special revelation to people because of the supernatural acts that occured in the lives of many people that existed when the accounts were recorded. If I had seen the Red Sea part, I think I would be pretty inclined to listen to what that deity had to say through the person he used to preform the miracle. Miracles tend to increase one's faith and helps to build credibility with prophets. God didn't do those things just to blow smoke, or impress himself. He did it to give us a reason to trust His revelation, which came through his prophets. Millions of people don't just accept a book because it's there. They have to have a reason, especially when that book condemns man's very nature. Why would anyone adhere to a book that was at odds with their very nature unless they really believed it was inspired? Beats me. Something tells me that there is a lot to be said for the foundation of the Bible and how it has been preserved and passed on. No other literary work this ancient has ever survived like this. Why? I don't attribute it to dumb luck. Fire Escape Name: Jk #18 Date: Sat Mar 04 19:33:48 1989 Sure.. why don't you learn how to quit being an asshole? Your problem is far worse than "mine". Name: Bc #67 Date: Sat Mar 04 22:11:30 1989 I'm a bit confused as to what 'special revelation' is and how you can tell when someone has had it. Did Jim Jones have it? Has Jesse Jackson had it? How about Jim Baker? ­ Chief Name: Gryphon #21 Date: Sun Mar 05 10:43:18 1989 What FE basically said is that without the Bible, the Xian religion has no basis for existence. Name: Headless Chicken #6 Date: Sun Mar 05 18:38:03 1989 Thanx, Buzz Saw, I'm glad you told me. That one piece of enlightenment has shown me where my philosophy breaks down. I think that I will go off and join a monestary or a convent (which would be damn exciting!) for a while. Wow, it's like the whole universe has exploded before my eyes! Thanx again. :) I question miricles and all of the tripe that goes along with them. You see, if you do strange things to your body, you're going to feel very strange. Is this God or that over-ripe fish that you just ate? I don't know. I think that what it boils down to is that I am a skeptic. There are skepitcal people who, when told that Nixon is a Quaker (which are pacifists) and a Republican (which are not pacifists), will say, "So, I basically don't know if Nixon is a pacifist," while credulous people would say, "Yeah, I guess he is a pacifist and not a pacifist. Yeah." You see the difference? Name: Cheech Wizard #12 Date: Wed Mar 08 12:53:15 1989 Skeptics, Regardless of whether Nixon is or is not a pacifist, he is "not a crook." Yeah, right. Name: Doomer #20 Date: Sat Feb 25 00:17:22 1989 Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understood it, there were only a small spot in which it actually ripped on Islam, and even then, not overly. Either way, its uncalled for, and I'm telling the Ayatollah that Rushdie is in your basement, Stex® Hmmm, somewhere there a perfectly serious post turned into your basic BS...nothing new, eh? :) Name: Headless Chicken #6 Date: Sat Feb 25 20:41:39 1989 I'm waiting for Albert Goldman to come out with The Lives of Jesus Christ: Vegisexual, Liberal, Lunatic® Then I'll see how the Christians take it. Name: Utwo #109 Date: Sun Feb 26 10:46:02 1989 FE, Wasn't it the Christians that led the crusades? Pretty unusual for people who love their enimies. I think people should love their enimies but you're not going to find many that really do. I'm Catholic so you can't call me a satanist or anything like that. Name: Gryphon #21 Date: Sun Feb 26 12:01:07 1989 One note, the book is, as Rushdie stated, fiction....I wonder if that had anything to do with it, who knows... Not only the Crusades, but many smaller campaigns, plus the Spanish INquisition...all against "heretics", "heathens", the *enemies*... Name: Mr. Ed #1 Date: Sun Feb 26 15:19:39 1989 It is a bad day in world affairs when a leader cannot take gently a piece of fiction that goes against the religion he follows. I have not read the Satanic verses, nor even just the bit that offends the followers of Islam. But, it cannot be much worse, in my opinion, than any of the crap that comedians have to say about Catholics. You don't see the Pope demanding the death of anyone that offends the Catholic religon. I realize that comedy and the Satanic Verses are two different things, but both are intended to be taken as artistic works of fiction. I would assume that similar books have been published that offended the Catholic (or any Christian denomination for that matter) or Christianity in general. Does anyone know of an example and the reaction to it? Name: Stex #22 Date: Sun Feb 26 16:49:29 1989 Works that offended the Catholics. I went over that in History I think, during the time of Inquisition or even after that the Catholic church had a whole list of books that were "evil" or not Christian-like. Had them all written down on something, but I can't remember it's name. Name: Gryphon #21 Date: Mon Feb 27 06:35:12 1989 Another Thing, on the Xian religion, in the 15th-16th centuries they were responsible for preventing artists to continue with their work if, say, it didn't agree with their interpretation of the bible. Galileo was forced to say all of his works were lies...people were forbidden to study anything except for the Bible...people saying the world was round were laughed at and thrown out of the church. Nice guys. Name: Headless Chicken #6 Date: Mon Feb 27 15:15:34 1989 You see, FE will just say, "Oh, they weren't REAL Christians." How can one argue? After all, if you want to be a "real"Christian, you have to be personally approved by FE. Name: Fire Escape #65 Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:29 1989 Not Necessarily HC, But a "real" Christian will reflect in his life the ideals of Christ, that is what it means to be a "christian". Christian means, "Christ-One" or more literally, "One who is like Christ or follows the way of Jesus Christ". If someone says, "oh, I'm a Christian" and then goes out and murders 200 people, would you say that person is a Christ-One? I sure wouldn't, regardless of what they claim. If you talk the talk but don't walk the walk, you are not a Christian, the Bible is very clear on that point. The Bible says to Love your enemies, to be discerning, and to preach the gospel. If one is going about hating their enemies and causeing harm to people, then by the witness of the Bible, they are not a Christian. It has nothing to do with what I think, as the only think opinion that really matters is God's opninion® - Fire Escape Name: Headless Chicken #6 Date: Mon Feb 27 21:58:58 1989 How can you have any enemies if you love them all??? I suppose that YOU could only be THEIR enemy. It is convienient, though, to be able to dismiss all of the crimes done by self-proclaimed Christians by saying, "Oh, but they are not REAL Christians." It makes it hard to pin anything down. Personally, I think that if you believe that you are something, you are part of that group/class. It's all metaphysics, though. Name: Fire Escape #65 Date: Wed Mar 01 17:14:15 1989 I BELIEVE I am a millionarire, so I guess that means I am one and therefore must be part of that group. Gee, why didn't I think of this before. Wow, no more money problems. Calling yourself something makes you that. Wow, I create reality with my perceptions, is this what they call New Age?? Give me a break. It would be convienent wouldn't it HC if you could dismiss God on the basis of People. Well, this person screewed up, and that one screwed up, guess God's a screwup. That's so logical. As I said before, God said what he was like, he said how we should live and think if we LOVE Him. If one isn't matching up to the revelation in someway, does that invalidate the revelation? No. It only makes me wonder how anyone could believe that HUMANS wrote the Bible. Who in their right mind would write a book that condemned them in every way. No one can live up to the image of Christ perfectly. It seems self defeating to make-up a standard so high that even that person couldn't keep it. God knows who is really His and who isn't, regardless of what we think, our only responsibility is to Him and to ourselves, to know the truth and to respond to it appropriately. Personally, I am more concerned with my walk with Jesus than with Joe Smoe's walk. Perhaps you should be looking at what God says to YOU, not what he has said to someone else, especially those who call themselves Christians. Don't take our word for it, open the Bible and investigate it for yourself® - Fire Escape Name: Gryphon #21 Date: Thu Mar 02 06:46:06 1989 Yes but you A) can't prove the you are interpreting the religion/Bible wrong and the earlier Xians were actually correct, and B) it doesn't matter...it was accepted church doctrine and thus they WERE Christians no matter what you say. Name: Utwo #109 Date: Thu Mar 02 16:19:01 1989 FE, Your argument that people who go out and kill people aren't Christians means that almost all of Europe in Medieval Ages were not Christians. Also since the fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance the Church had all kinds of books that people weren't suppose to read. They included science, philosophy, and literature books. All these books were condemed by the Church because they were afraid they would loose control of the people. It really didn't matter if they were condemed or not nobody could read at that time. Plus most did not go against the Church. Name: Headless Chicken #6 Date: Fri Mar 03 03:02:18 1989 The ABove: It is all in the eyes of the beholder. Name: Fire Escape #65 Date: Fri Mar 03 14:21:34 1989 Where in the Bible, does it say, "Thou shall not read books that oppose your beliefs."? I would really like to see that verse. I don't care what GARBAGE the "church" (whatever that is) hangs on it's marble altars, if it ain't in the Bible, then it ain't important and it ain't relavent to how a believer should live his life. God did not inspire TRADITION. He inspired the Bible. Traditions change and they are based on the rules and principles of men instead of on God. Isaiah 29:13 described this pretty well: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain: their teachings are but rules taught by men." The "church" isn't a building, it isn't a denomination. It's not a set of doctrines. The Church is the PERSON who trusts in Christ and obeys God's word. And any number of those PEOPLE gathered together. You can wear the lable, but if Christ is NOT in you, and your life is not bearing the "fruit" of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), then you are not part of the VINE, which is Jesus (John 15:1-8). Regardless of what the world THINKS a Christian is, the Bible holds the only true STANDARD by which to measure that reality! Name: Gryphon #21 Date: Fri Mar 03 14:59:57 1989 YOu didn't answer my question... How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is right, while the Xians of the Middle Ages were wrong? Name: Headless Chicken #6 Date: Fri Mar 03 17:00:22 1989 Tradition: Note: The following is pure speculation and has no basis in fact, only reason. I think that the reason that the Catholic Church began to use more tradition than anyting else was because it had (and has) TONS of people in it. One implication of this is that you will have a good number of folks who are completely illiterate and therefore cannot read the Bible. If there is a tradition, however, it makes them feel tied to the Church. Rituals also tend to bond people to an organization or institution and this is why many Christian faiths have a set of rituals like Communion that their members go through. (I'm sure you're little group has traditions too, FE, even if you don't acknowledge or recognise them as such.) All of this bonds people to the Church. On the other hand, there will be quite a few really intelligent people who can't quite come to terms with what they see as inconsistancy in the Bible. (No, I don't want a lecture on "the Big Picture," FE.) These folks will try to create notions and ideas that tentatively explain why certain things are so. This is one reason that Aristotle was put on a pedistal: he explained Earthly occurences in terms of Angels and so forth. He turned out to be wrong on many counts, but that really didn't matter; for them his explanations were good enough. The Church also put a great deal of stock in logic because it was the tool of these "thinking men." In fact, it is part of the Catholic dogma that the existance of God can be proved through pure logic. (Needless to say, it hasn't been done.) I think that it is a combination of these two things that lead the Church on the path of a living tradition with a foundation on a dead book rather than on the path of sticking to 2000-3000 year old writings.