was RELIGION ? Re: PREDICTED FAMINE Now speaking of wings

[Guest guest]

Don't you think that there are some things that we should judge others about,

and that, to some degree, it is precisely those things that differentiate us?

Should we not render a harsh judgement on someone who condones torture of

others, or is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths based on a lie,

etc? Whether we judge, and whether we ultimately forgive, and how, are not the

same issue, are they?

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> Now I'm sounding judgemental, huh? I didn't mean all of those on the

> right are judgmental, but there's that type that goes around judging

> everyone else and calling them sinners and going on about how bad

> they are while they fail to see the log in their own eyes.

>

> But then I guess anytime we criticize anyone there's those other

> fingers pointing back at us, huh? Some judge about premarital sex,

> homosexuality, and abortion, while others judge about supporting

> sweatshops and slaves on coffee plantations, torture of innocent

> political prisoners, depleted uranium, pollution. We've all got our

> blind spots, I guess.

>

>

> >

> > Careful there ;o) I'm one of those crazy rightwingers and I

> guessing

> > that they/we are everywhere. I have this theory that the political

> > spectrum is more like a circle and at each end you may find those

> who

> > do some of the the same outward actions, but for different

> reasons.

> > Dont' try to take it too far, but in recent years I've found myself

> > doing some really crunchy things and meeting and hanging with all

> sorts

> > of people.

> >

> > One of those crazy rightwingers.

> >

> >

> > >

> > I see how the right-wingers can take this to do the

> > > judgemental " we're superior to you sinners " thing

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 3/14/08, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Now I'm sounding judgemental, huh? I didn't mean all of those on the

> right are judgmental, but there's that type that goes around judging

> everyone else and calling them sinners and going on about how bad

> they are while they fail to see the log in their own eyes.

>

> But then I guess anytime we criticize anyone there's those other

> fingers pointing back at us, huh? Some judge about premarital sex,

> homosexuality, and abortion, while others judge about supporting

> sweatshops and slaves on coffee plantations, torture of innocent

> political prisoners, depleted uranium, pollution. We've all got our

> blind spots, I guess.

Some of us could take a lesson from St. :

" The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus

came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of

sinners. " (1 1:15)

And:

" Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. " (1 Corinthians 11:1)

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 3/14/08, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> I thought I heard somewhere that Bush regularly talked to God

> and God told him to invade Iraq?

Unfortunately, God only told Pat on how much of a mess it would

be and didn't even tell Bush there would be any casualties:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49088-2004Oct20.html

Chris

[Guest guest]

> So, for example, because there is historical precedent for leaders lyiing, and

> for killing 1,000,000 people, that makes it ok? Is that how we express our

> love for those Iraqi sinners?

>

>

>

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > I agree that we should love the sinner and hate the sin.

>> >

>> > Now, some may say that this next statement is hypocritical, but as far

>> > as foreign policy, it's dog eat dog, I mean eat or get eaten. This is

>> > a historical fact, do I justify the acts of the US abroad, I don't know

>> > if it can be helped, humans and governments being as they are. All I

>> > can say is that I am eagerly awaiting the thousand years of peace when

>> > Christ will reign as our King, then all the injustices will be repaid.

>> >

>> > Dora

>> >

>> >

>>> >>

>>> >> The more I read the Bible the more it stands out to me to judge the

>>> >> acts not the people; that's not our job. I'm still struggling with

>>> >> that one, tho.

>>> >>

[Guest guest]

Leah,

> So powerful, Chris. Thank you for sharing that. I am going to write

> that down to remember it.

You're welcome. The whole book is beautiful; if you like the quote

you might want to read it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> > I¹m just not sure that the admonition not to judge people really says much

> > semantically. What does it really mean?

> > Suppose you have someone, say, who lies to an entire country, and is

> > responsible repeatedly for many deaths and suffering on a grand scale.

> > What exactly is the real difference between judging his acts, and judging

him

> > as a person? I mean, you know that this person didn¹t do these things by

> > accident, and you know he will do these things again. You know that this

> > person will do these horrible things, and apparently doesn¹t feel much guilt

> > about doing them and believes them to be good acts. Functionally, tell me

the

> > difference (if you believe that these actions are bad, and that this person

is

> > disposed to commit them) between judging and not judging?

You are making an excellent point, but I do not think that " judge not

lest ye be judged " is simply playing a semantic game. Nor do I think

it is intended to mean what you are suggesting -- i.e. do not

discriminate between good and evil conducted by others.

The word " judge " is used in different contexts in the Gospels and

there are admonitions to judge and not to judge, in these different

senses. In the Gospel of , where " judgment " is opposed to

" eternal life, " judgment means condemnation, and those who inherit

eternal life are not judged. In 's letters, all people will be

judged according to their works, including those who inherit eternal

life, and judgment thus means to receive one or the other. also

writes not to judge those outside the Church even for horrible sins,

but to judge those inside the Church; and here he means for the

community to administer discipline such as excommunication in certain

cases (pending repentance).

In the Gospel of , " Judge not lest ye be judged " is followed by

the admonition not to take the speck out of your brothers eye without

first taking the log out of your own. It has to also be taken into

the context of the general admonition to obtain extreme humility that

is weaved through the Gospels.

So, we see for example in chapter 18 of Luke in the parable of the

publican and pharisee, that the latter, being righteous and thanking

God for not being like the sinner was accounted unjustified, while the

publican, beating his breast and crying, " O God, be merciful to me a

sinner, " was accounted justified because of his humility.

The paradox of the Christian life is that it is a struggle to be as

righteous as the Pharisee but with all the humility of the publican.

Thus, how did account himself the foremost of all sinners? And

did he really feel this way, not merely effecting empty speech for the

appearance of humility? From the Christian perspective, this can only

occur through the grace of God, but it is what every Christian must

strive for.

And this task, obtaining both righteousness and extreme humility, is

the task of taking the log out of one's eye. One who attempts to

teach others by knowledge rather than the experience of divine grace

that leads to extreme humility will be a blind man leading another

blind man into a ditch. To teach Christianity is not based on words

(like mine, I read a lot) but based on the experience of the Holy

Spirit that comes with humbling oneself and redirecting one's energies

towards intense longing for God. Thus the adage of St. Searphim of

Sarov, " Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and a thousand souls around you

will be saved. "

So, what this means on a practical level in terms of judging actions

versus judging people, we discriminate between what are good and bad

actions, but we do not feel ourselves superior, because we ascribe the

evil actions of others to ignorance, and we know that to whom much is

given, much will be required, so when we assess our own faults, we

consider how much we have been given and how much we fall short of

what should be expected of us.

So there is a certain type of judging that we do, and another type

that we do not.

Does that make sense?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Gene,

>> >

>>>> >>> I¹m just not sure that the admonition not to judge people really says

>>>> much

>>>> >>> semantically. What does it really mean?

>> >

>>>> >>> Suppose you have someone, say, who lies to an entire country, and is

>>>> >>> responsible repeatedly for many deaths and suffering on a grand scale.

>>>> >>> What exactly is the real difference between judging his acts, and

>>>> judging

>>>> >>> him

>>>> >>> as a person? I mean, you know that this person didn¹t do these things

by

>>>> >>> accident, and you know he will do these things again. You know that

>>>> this

>>>> >>> person will do these horrible things, and apparently doesn¹t feel much

>>>> guilt

>>>> >>> about doing them and believes them to be good acts. Functionally, tell

me

>>>> >>> the

>>>> >>> difference (if you believe that these actions are bad, and that this

>>>> person

>>>> >>> is

>>>> >>> disposed to commit them) between judging and not judging?

>> >

>> > You are making an excellent point, but I do not think that " judge not

>> > lest ye be judged " is simply playing a semantic game.

>

> Here we go again.

>

> I did not suggest that this biblical quote represents a semantic game. I do

> think that practically every person who quotes it in order to preclude the

> judging of people who commit evil actions on a grand scale don¹t really think

> about what it actually means. What does it really mean to judge someone?

>

>> > Nor do I think

>> > it is intended to mean what you are suggesting -- i.e. do not

>> > discriminate between good and evil conducted by others.

>

> Did I suggest this?

>> >

>> > The word " judge " is used in different contexts in the Gospels and

>> > there are admonitions to judge and not to judge, in these different

>> > senses. In the Gospel of , where " judgment " is opposed to

>> > " eternal life, " judgment means condemnation, and those who inherit

>> > eternal life are not judged. In 's letters, all people will be

>> > judged according to their works, including those who inherit eternal

>> > life, and judgment thus means to receive one or the other. also

>> > writes not to judge those outside the Church even for horrible sins,

>> > but to judge those inside the Church; and here he means for the

>> > community to administer discipline such as excommunication in certain

>> > cases (pending repentance).

>> >

>> > In the Gospel of , " Judge not lest ye be judged " is followed by

>> > the admonition not to take the speck out of your brothers eye without

>> > first taking the log out of your own. It has to also be taken into

>> > the context of the general admonition to obtain extreme humility that

>> > is weaved through the Gospels.

>

> I¹m really not seeing how you¹ve answered my questions. I don¹t think that

> it¹s a question of humility or lack thereof, that I can say that a person who

> consistently commits evil acts (which you seem to allow me to allude to), and

> will quite predictably commit more, is someone that we consider to be evil by

> definition. This is how we judge ethically. As far as my own actions, I don¹t

> lie and use those lies to commit mass murder, so I don¹t think I¹ll be called

> on that either. I cannot condemn someone to eternal damnation, nor can I imbue

> them with eternal life. My judging someone is really just using the English

> language correctly. To me, the real issue is the recognition of everyone¹s

> humanity, that people can change and repent, and that even if they don¹t, to

> require that they suffer for the sake of suffering, is to start to become like

> the evil that you¹re condeming. I would want GWB to suffer so that he could

> achieve repentance, but simply watching him suffer without Œgetting it¹ is

> empty.

>> >

>> > So, we see for example in chapter 18 of Luke in the parable of the

>> > publican and pharisee, that the latter, being righteous and thanking

>> > God for not being like the sinner was accounted unjustified, while the

>> > publican, beating his breast and crying, " O God, be merciful to me a

>> > sinner, " was accounted justified because of his humility.

>> >

>> > The paradox of the Christian life is that it is a struggle to be as

>> > righteous as the Pharisee but with all the humility of the publican.

>> > Thus, how did account himself the foremost of all sinners? And

>> > did he really feel this way, not merely effecting empty speech for the

>> > appearance of humility? From the Christian perspective, this can only

>> > occur through the grace of God, but it is what every Christian must

>> > strive for.

>

> Enough of the sermon. It¹s not needed here. We are communicating in English,

> and making points in English. I¹m not correcting people on the biblical

> interpretations, nor do I care about them in the slightest.

>> >

>> > And this task, obtaining both righteousness and extreme humility, is

>> > the task of taking the log out of one's eye. One who attempts to

>> > teach others by knowledge rather than the experience of divine grace

>> > that leads to extreme humility will be a blind man leading another

>> > blind man into a ditch. To teach Christianity is not based on words

>> > (like mine, I read a lot) but based on the experience of the Holy

>> > Spirit that comes with humbling oneself and redirecting one's energies

>> > towards intense longing for God. Thus the adage of St. Searphim of

>> > Sarov, " Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and a thousand souls around you

>> > will be saved. "

>> >

>> > So, what this means on a practical level in terms of judging actions

>> > versus judging people, we discriminate between what are good and bad

>> > actions, but we do not feel ourselves superior, because we ascribe the

>> > evil actions of others to ignorance, and we know that to whom much is

>> > given, much will be required, so when we assess our own faults, we

>> > consider how much we have been given and how much we fall short of

>> > what should be expected of us.

>

> But, you see, this is where the problem lies so often with Christians who read

> this stuff on a shallow level (almost 100% of people who regurgitate it on

> nutrition forums, for instance) - it usually works this way.

> 1. We should not consider ourselves superior

> 2. We should judge actions as evil, not people

> 3. X isn¹t evil and I¹m not superior because the bible tells me this

>

> However it is usually people like this who are the MOST judgemental (in my

> experience), because the believe this kind of simplistic logic.

>

> The real issue is the recognition of humanity, repentance, forgiveness. I

> believe that there is an equivalence between this and the deeper sayings in

> the bible (of course, it¹s a lack of humility on my part that I¹ve read very

> little of it), but you run into big issues with literal interpretations. OF

> COURSE we judge people like Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. And we should.

> But I don¹t really think that this is what is meant in the Bible.

>

>> >

>> > So there is a certain type of judging that we do, and another type

>> > that we do not.

>> >

>> > Does that make sense?

>

> Oh, thank you so for the bible lesson.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> > I did not suggest that this biblical quote represents a semantic game. I

> do

> > think that practically every person who quotes it in order to preclude the

> > judging of people who commit evil actions on a grand scale don¹t really

> think

> > about what it actually means. What does it really mean to judge someone?

I'm sorry for misunderstanding and misrepresenting what you were saying.

[snip]

> > But, you see, this is where the problem lies so often with Christians who

> read

> > this stuff on a shallow level (almost 100% of people who regurgitate it on

> > nutrition forums, for instance) - it usually works this way.

> > 1. We should not consider ourselves superior

> > 2. We should judge actions as evil, not people

> > 3. X isn¹t evil and I¹m not superior because the bible tells me this

If " X " is the evil-committer, and this person is acknowledging the

evil of the action, I don't think it makes much difference whether one

chooses to say the person is evil, or the person has committed an evil

action. If " X " is the evil action, then the person is deluding

themselves. I'm not sure we are disagreeing on anything?

> > Oh, thank you so for the bible lesson.

Sorry, I didn't realizing you were only taking issue with what you

consider a misinterpretation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>>>> >>> But, you see, this is where the problem lies so often with Christians

who

>>> >> read

>>>> >>> this stuff on a shallow level (almost 100% of people who regurgitate it

on

>>>> >>> nutrition forums, for instance) - it usually works this way.

>>>> >>> 1. We should not consider ourselves superior

>>>> >>> 2. We should judge actions as evil, not people

>>>> >>> 3. X isn¹t evil and I¹m not superior because the bible tells me this

>> >

>> > If " X " is the evil-committer, and this person is acknowledging the

>> > evil of the action, I don't think it makes much difference whether one

>> > chooses to say the person is evil, or the person has committed an evil

>> > action. If " X " is the evil action, then the person is deluding

>> > themselves. I'm not sure we are disagreeing on anything?

>

> X is the person who commits the evil action...

>

> Perhaps the whole thing can be summed up this way. If you view reality as

> consisting of all of these metaphysical/religious entities that are real

> things ­ like evil and good, heaven and hell, etc, then I think that judging

> someone as evil has a bit of a different connotation than if you don¹t

> recognize these things as the cartoon-like forces they are made out to be.

> It¹s my contention that in a non-religious mailing list, where the topic

> really isn¹t biblical interpretation, you can¹t assume heaven/hell/good/evil

> as in the comic book Christian interpretation. Ultimately, then, (now, I am

> not a behaviorist), evil becomes simply an analysis of behavior, and not

> whether you have this mysterious presence inside you, and whether a personal

> god (bearded or not) will take time out of his busy schedule to sentence you

> to some eternal or temporary hell is really not the issue.

>

> So, I think that we¹re saying the same thing, if I catch your drift ­ if

> someone does evil things, and they have not sincerely changed and repented,

> then the language works as such that we call them evil....or until someone

> invents an evil detector, perhaps endorsed by the Catholic Church.

>> >

>>>> >>> Oh, thank you so for the bible lesson.

>> >

>> > Sorry, I didn't realizing you were only taking issue with what you

>> > consider a misinterpretation.

>

> Ok. I¹ll consider you to have committed an evil act, but not be evil....

>> >

>> > Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> > Perhaps the whole thing can be summed up this way. If you view reality as

> > consisting of all of these metaphysical/religious entities that are real

> > things ­ like evil and good, heaven and hell, etc, then I think that

> judging

> > someone as evil has a bit of a different connotation than if you don¹t

> > recognize these things as the cartoon-like forces they are made out to be.

> > It¹s my contention that in a non-religious mailing list, where the topic

> > really isn¹t biblical interpretation, you can¹t assume

> heaven/hell/good/evil

> > as in the comic book Christian interpretation. Ultimately, then, (now, I

> am

> > not a behaviorist), evil becomes simply an analysis of behavior, and not

> > whether you have this mysterious presence inside you, and whether a

> personal

> > god (bearded or not) will take time out of his busy schedule to sentence

> you

> > to some eternal or temporary hell is really not the issue.

Well, this is frankly silly and useless then. Just because the *list*

is religiously neutral does not mean the people on it are.

And of course, the authentic Christian doctrine is that God is

uncircumscribable and immaterial and so does not have a beard...

> > Ok. I¹ll consider you to have committed an evil act, but not be evil....

I'll assume that means you are allowing the opportunity for me to

repent. Thank you. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> - for instance, where in the

> Bible does it say anything about guardian angels???

It is pretty implicit here:

" See that you despise not one of these little ones; for I tell you

that their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in

heaven. "

> Zoroaster was the one who came up with the whole thing about the

> universal battle between good and evil and the need to choose sides.

> So we can take it two ways - our religion has been contaminated by a

> pagan religion; or God revealed more than we'd like to know to someone

> outside of our exclusive faith. Weird, huh? Like He did to Akhenaten,

> Cyrus, and Deganawida. Makes me go " Hmmm " .

No I don't really see why this would be weird, or why someone could

not speculate about good versus evil without direct revelation anyway,

or why Zoroaster could not have borrowed from Judaism or other

religions, or why it would be more than we'd like to know for

Zoroaster to know that there is good and evil. Why would I want

Zoroaster to not know about this?

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 3/16/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Renate,

>

> > - for instance, where in the

> > Bible does it say anything about guardian angels???

>

> It is pretty implicit here:

>

> " See that you despise not one of these little ones; for I tell you

> that their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in

> heaven. "

Sorry -- the citation for that is 18:10.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Well, as usual I am coming into this late and I am a bit of a renegade when

it comes to the religious side of the Christianity although I am a born

again Christian. I believe in the Bible and try to stay away from the

religious stuff and try to follow 's advice in the scripture of

studying to show ourselves approved " rightly' dividing the Word of Truth and

I will tell you the Devil, called many things in the bible but typically in

the new testament as the Adversary, is definitely there. I don't believe we

go to heaven when we die as the Bible is pretty clear that we " sleep " and if

you study the old and new testaments there are countless scriptures to back

it up. I do believe Christ will come for us as it states in Thessalonians

and the dead in Christ will rise first and those that are alive will follow.

If he comes back for us and we meet him in the air (this gathering together

of the saints is not to be confused with when he comes to earth in

Revelation and if you note Thessalonians he does not come to earth but we

meet him in the air) if we are already with him why then does he come back

for us? Then you have the Old Testament Jews and the time after the

gathering together and Revelation. Ephesians does state that we as

Christians have already been judged and we will go before the " Bema " which

is the seat of rewards and receive (if we have earned any of them) any or

all of the seven crowns. The Jews before, during and after will be judged

according the law unless they have received Christ and unbelievers will be

judged and if they accept Christ they will be saved and if not go to

eternal damnation.

I did not make this up it is all in the Bible. It is also in the Law (Old

Testament).

Anyhow, the point I am making is you are mostly right in your assumptions

and continued study of the Bible will show you this.

And yes, I agree that Christianity has definitely been contaminated and that

happened when was told to go to the Gentiles (pagans) (Acts 10 I

think). So when this happened many of their beliefs were brought into

Christianity, i.e. the Christmas Tree, The Bunny Rabbit (Pagan symbol of

fertility), etc. If you look at Catholicism you will see many things that

are pagan from the Popes, Bishops, etc. clothes and hats to many things in

the church. There are books out there I have read many years ago that go

into this and it is very interesting.\

Just my 2 cents! I do think the guardian angels are there but not called

guardian angels. I will try to find it and give you scripture.

Allyn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of haecklers

Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:58 PM

Subject: was RELIGION ? Re: PREDICTED FAMINE Now speaking of wings

What I'm starting to wonder about all this good/evil stuff is if it's

really Christianity or the effects of Zoroastrianism on Christianity.

I'm reading up on it and the whole thing about the God/Devil dichotomy

is Zoroastrian; as is the idea of guardian angels, heaven in the

afterlife and more that we think of as Christian even though there is

only a very loose basis of it in the Bible - for instance, where in the

Bible does it say anything about guardian angels???

Zoroaster was the one who came up with the whole thing about the

universal battle between good and evil and the need to choose sides.

So we can take it two ways - our religion has been contaminated by a

pagan religion; or God revealed more than we'd like to know to someone

outside of our exclusive faith. Weird, huh? Like He did to Akhenaten,

Cyrus, and Deganawida. Makes me go " Hmmm " .

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Gene,

>> >

>>>> >>> Perhaps the whole thing can be summed up this way. If you view reality

as

>>>> >>> consisting of all of these metaphysical/religious entities that are

>>>> real

>>>> >>> things ­ like evil and good, heaven and hell, etc, then I think that

>>> >> judging

>>>> >>> someone as evil has a bit of a different connotation than if you don¹t

>>>> >>> recognize these things as the cartoon-like forces they are made out to

be.

>>>> >>> It¹s my contention that in a non-religious mailing list, where the >>>>

topic

>>>> >>> really isn¹t biblical interpretation, you can¹t assume

>>> >> heaven/hell/good/evil

>>>> >>> as in the comic book Christian interpretation. Ultimately, then, (now,

I

>>> >> am

>>>> >>> not a behaviorist), evil becomes simply an analysis of behavior, and

not

>>>> >>> whether you have this mysterious presence inside you, and whether a

>>> >> personal

>>>> >>> god (bearded or not) will take time out of his busy schedule to

>>>> sentence

>>> >> you

>>>> >>> to some eternal or temporary hell is really not the issue.

>> >

>> > Well, this is frankly silly and useless then. Just because the *list*

>> > is religiously neutral does not mean the people on it are.

>> >

>

> And, of course, I didn¹t imply that, did I? But if you¹re arguing religious

> interpretation, that is really a different argument. If you think that Jesus

> meant this, and meant that, and someone else has a different

> interpretation, that really doesn¹t say anything at all about whether, IN REAL

> LIFE, we can, do, and should, judge people in ways that make sense in that

> context. But, in the sense that MOST arguments with you wind up being silly, I

> guess I agree.

>

>> > And of course, the authentic Christian doctrine is that God is

>> > uncircumscribable and immaterial and so does not have a beard...

>

> ­ does every joke need to be accompanied by a smiley? (I believe that

> jokes are uncircumscribable and immaterial, and hence shouldn¹t need them).

>> >

>>>> >>> Ok. I¹ll consider you to have committed an evil act, but not be

>>>> evil....

>> >

>> > I'll assume that means you are allowing the opportunity for me to

>> > repent. Thank you. :-)

>

> Well, remember that I differentiated sincere repentance from insincere

> repentance.

>> >

>> > Chris

[Guest guest]

> > Well, remember that I differentiated sincere repentance from insincere

> > repentance.

And since repentance is a gift from the Lord, you would be able to discern?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>>> >>> Well, remember that I differentiated sincere repentance from insincere

>>>> >>> repentance.

>> >

>> > And since repentance is a gift from the Lord, you would be able to discern?

>> >

>> > Sharon

>> >

There are so many levels at which this is silly.

First, I think that quite obviously it was a joke.

Second, this isn¹t a christian list, or even a religious list, so I suppose

I didn¹t see these presents being handed out this year.

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> >> > I'll assume that means you are allowing the opportunity for me to

> >> > repent. Thank you. :-)

> > Well, remember that I differentiated sincere repentance from insincere

> > repentance.

And given that I did not intentionally misinterpret what you were

arguing, but nevertheless did, is there any reason to doubt the

sincerity of my apology? And isn't the fact that I did not continue

to distort what you were saying after you corrected me plain evidence

that my repentance (literally, to change one's mind) is sincere? I

mean, obviously I'm not in a sorrowful state or groveling or anything,

but I corrected my mistake and am not seeking to perpetuate it.

I think every joke has a smiley in heaven regardless of whether it can

be seen accompanying it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> >> >

> >> > And since repentance is a gift from the Lord, you would be able to

> discern?

> >> >

> >> > Sharon

> >> >

>

> There are so many levels at which this is silly.

>

> First, I think that quite obviously it was a joke.

>

> Second, this isn¹t a christian list, or even a religious list, so I suppose

> I didn¹t see these presents being handed out this year.

>

>

Isn't it a " religious list " , Gene? Have you been sharing your

" beliefs " for years on here?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Gene,

>> >

>>>>>> >>>>> I'll assume that means you are allowing the opportunity for me to

>>>>>> >>>>> repent. Thank you. :-)

>> >

>>>> >>> Well, remember that I differentiated sincere repentance from insincere

>>>> >>> repentance.

>> >

>> > And given that I did not intentionally misinterpret what you were

>> > arguing, but nevertheless did, is there any reason to doubt the

>> > sincerity of my apology?

>

> (shriek of despair, drowned out by synthesizers)

>

> mapping our argument onto the field of good vs evil is a joke. You may annoy

> me, but I certainly don¹t believe you to be evil, and taking your apology for

> the repentance of an evil was just silly. All that part of my discussion is

> joking around.

>

> And the 2 things are not incompatible ­ your arguments tend to annoy me, but I

> do believe you to be sincere. Sometimes you have read a little more into what

> I¹m saying ­ if it really seems to be idiotic, it¹s probably a joke. Well, the

> other logical possibility is that I¹m an idiot. But I have repented many times

> for that, though not on this list.

>

>> > And isn't the fact that I did not continue

>> > to distort what you were saying after you corrected me plain evidence

>> > that my repentance (literally, to change one's mind) is sincere? I

>> > mean, obviously I'm not in a sorrowful state or groveling or anything,

>> > but I corrected my mistake and am not seeking to perpetuate it.

>> >

>> > I think every joke has a smiley in heaven regardless of whether it can

>> > be seen accompanying it.

>

> yeah, maybe, but I¹m not allowed in, so I can¹t see them.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>> >>>>> And since repentance is a gift from the Lord, you would be able to

>>> >> discern?

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>> >>>>> Sharon

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>> >>

>>> >> There are so many levels at which this is silly.

>>> >>

>>> >> First, I think that quite obviously it was a joke.

>>> >>

>>> >> Second, this isn¹t a christian list, or even a religious list, so I

>>> suppose

>>> >> I didn¹t see these presents being handed out this year.

>>> >>

>>> >>

>> >

>> > Isn't it a " religious list " , Gene? Have you been sharing your

>> > " beliefs " for years on here?

>> > Sharon

>> >

Nice little dig, especially coming from someone who doesn¹t judge (I¹d

assume), but that¹s not the way that the language works. Simply having

beliefs is generally not considered to be Œa religion¹, at least not in the

context that we are talking about religion. There are some contexts in which

strong beliefs can be spoken about as religion, but that¹s not the

conversation we¹re having.

[Guest guest]

--- Renate <haecklers@...> wrote:

> What I'm starting to wonder about all this good/evil stuff is if

> it's really Christianity or the effects of Zoroastrianism on

> Christianity. I'm reading up on it and the whole thing about the

> God/Devil dichotomy is Zoroastrian; as is the idea of guardian

> angels, heaven in the afterlife and more that we think of as

> Christian even though there is only a very loose basis of it in the

> Bible - for instance, where in the Bible does it say anything about

> guardian angels???

Renate,

And where does it talk about Easter bunnies, Easter eggs, Christmas

trees, and Santa Claus?

> Zoroaster was the one who came up with the whole thing about the

> universal battle between good and evil and the need to choose sides.

> So we can take it two ways - our religion has been contaminated by a

> pagan religion; or God revealed more than we'd like to know to

> someone outside of our exclusive faith. Weird, huh? Like He did to

> Akhenaten, Cyrus, and Deganawida. Makes me go " Hmmm " .

I have " Hmmm " problems with all religions. They all have some good

points, but they all have things I find hard to believe. I once had a

guy come up to me in a park and tell me that I would go to hell if I

didn't know Jesus. I asked him if Moses went to hell, since Moses

never new Jesus. He said " Yes " . I asked what about all those people

who never have heard about Jesus - " They go to hell too " . So, I guess

all the poor souls born before Jesus all went to hell. I find this

hard to believe

In fact, there is no direct evidence that Jesus as described in the

New Testament ever was born on this earth as a human. His story may

very well have been invented gradually over a period of 100 or 200

years and then finally written in what we now know as the New

Testament. Just like Easter bunnies and Santa Claus. Here is part

one of a twelve piece puzzle that supports this view:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/puzzle1.htm

(click on " Next Piece " to build the puzzle)

I tend to judge a religion more by it's philosophy about life here on

earth, not about what it promises after death. How many suicide

bombers have killed themselves believing that they will be rewarded in

an afterlife? How many Christians follow Jesus's advice to give up

their worldly possessions? Maybe monks and nuns? Can the others

really claim to be Christians if they don't follow this advice? If

everyone gave up their worldly possessions, how would that work?

Would it be true socialism? Maybe we would all die and go to heaven?

My favorite philosophy from the New Testament is to treat others like

you like to be treated. This seems intuitive to me. But this idea

also predates Christianity and was obviously incorporated into it.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> If " X " is the evil-committer, and this person is acknowledging the

> evil of the action, I don't think it makes much difference whether one

> chooses to say the person is evil, or the person has committed an evil

> action. If " X " is the evil action, then the person is deluding

> themselves. I'm not sure we are disagreeing on anything?

I think you're rather missing the point, which I take to be that X is

the evil-committer and DOESN'T acknowledge the evil of his actions.

-

[Guest guest]

Sharon-

> Isn't it a " religious list " , Gene? Have you been sharing your

> " beliefs " for years on here?

No, it's absolutely not a religious list. The only way in which

religion is even remotely on-topic is inasmuch as it relates to

traditional diets and nutritional anthropology, which is generally a

very tenuous connection. The list is, in fact, a _scientific_ list,

because it's dedicated to discussing and discerning the scientific

truths of nutrition, health and physiology. Some list members,

however, are religious, and because I believe in freedom of speech and

the value of unfettered debate, I allow off-topic religious

discussions and sometimes even participate in them myself.

I hope this clarifies.

Idol

List-Owner

[Guest guest]

,

> > If " X " is the evil-committer, and this person is acknowledging the

> > evil of the action, I don't think it makes much difference whether one

> > chooses to say the person is evil, or the person has committed an evil

> > action. If " X " is the evil action, then the person is deluding

> > themselves. I'm not sure we are disagreeing on anything?

>

> I think you're rather missing the point, which I take to be that X is

> the evil-committer and DOESN'T acknowledge the evil of his actions.

By " this person " I did not mean X, but the person who is talking about

X. We'd have to quote further up in the discussion to make sense out

of it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Ah, understood. Then I think we probably agree on the matter.

-

> > > If " X " is the evil-committer, and this person is acknowledging the

> > > evil of the action, I don't think it makes much difference

> whether one

> > > chooses to say the person is evil, or the person has committed

> an evil

> > > action. If " X " is the evil action, then the person is deluding

> > > themselves. I'm not sure we are disagreeing on anything?

> >

> > I think you're rather missing the point, which I take to be that X

> is

> > the evil-committer and DOESN'T acknowledge the evil of his actions.

>

> By " this person " I did not mean X, but the person who is talking about

> X. We'd have to quote further up in the discussion to make sense out

> of it.