Messages From Marilyn Burge
41 - 60 of 3,324
Morality
of
Concepts such as "truth" and "justice" for sure exist. But I think
that there is a real danger in thinking that we know what they are. To
me, they are something one seeks, but never assumes one has found. The
minute you think you have a lock on the big questions, you're probably
the farthest off-base. This is one of the main reasons why fundies
drive me a little bit crazy. They don't understand where I'm coming
from, and
Council Of Nicea
I'm not an idiot! I meant exactly what I said. At the time of the
Council of Nicea, there WAS NOT OTHER GENTILE CHURCH EXCEPT THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH (or at least none that survived that Council). There
were Christians, and there were Jews. Period. And that's exactly what
I was saying. The Council of Nicea pretty much established the
Christian Church as an entity. Prior to that there was no agreement as
to what was canon, what was Jesus' intent,
Lightbulbs & X-tians
I see. So the halocaust wasn't evil because not all the non-Christians
were killed. Interesting perspective.
Genocide in the name of religion (or god) is evil, no matter what
justification is given. If a human being gave the same order as your
god, he'd be immediately declared an evil lunatic. But when you god
issues the order, he's a good guy in a just cause. Interesting
perspective. Not one that I share, and hardly one that can be
supported by
Jesus
I suspect you are misreading what Marshall said, although I would not
presume to speak for him. There are two Jesuses. One is the historic
figure of Jesus, the other in the mythologized figure that we know
today. The former existed; the latter didn't. It's like the story
about George Washington and the cherry tree. Although it makes a good
story, there isn't a word of truth in it. That Washington lived is
indisputible; that he was like we have
God
I
That's your definition of god, not mine. Mine, like I said, is really
quite different.
Fact Vs. Faith
If you mean "human beings" in the same sense are we are human beings, I
would have to agree. The atmosphere hardly lends itself to human life.
But I have no way of knowing if there is some life form that thrives in
that environment, for the reasons I stated earlier. Just as we survive
with oxygen etc., there may very well be a life form on the moon that
survives quite nicely in that environment. I can only say
Question
No, it was meant to cause an abortion as proof of adultery. It was an
abortificient, no matter how you slice it.
Evidence?
Paul did not write Acts. Acts is primarily about two of Jesus'
original disciples, Peter and John, and of Paul who was not one of the
original twelve, although he considered himself to be an Apostle.
Biblical scholars generally agree that Acts was not written by Paul,
but rather by the same person who wrote Luke. It is possible that
Luke, an associate of Paul, did write these mterials, but there doesn't
seem to be any agreement about this matter.
Evidence?
a
If that is precisely what I said, I misspoke. I should have said that
they accepted those books (and the interpretation of those books) that
was most likely to FURTHER their power. Power corrupts, and many men
have lusted for power, including the heads of the Catholic Church.
I will tell you my views as I see them; I will not characterize those
views with a label. I don't call myself Christian, deist, or anything
else except "atheist." I
Religon
Highly unlikely. Given the number of flat-out statements in the Bible,
the number of ccontradictions there are among them, and the number of
ways each statement can be interpreted, the likelihood of one sect
getting all of the possible permutations exactly right is infinity.
The Gospel!
Rather than assume you have a handle on Martin's reason for being here,
wouldn't it be better to ask him? And, given the number of "other
religions" there are in this world, why rag on him because he did not
choose to investigate a specific one? Maybe he's an expert on
Hinduism, for all you know.
And, possibly he is in this conference because he likes showing the
fundies how ignorant they are about HIS area of expertise, and not
Assurance
Steve, old boy, I don't know how to break this to you, but that is the
definition of situational ethics.
Fact Vs. Faith
There's more in question that a mere difference in wording. To begin
with, there are many more than ten. In the second place, you think
they mean what you've been told they mean, but the words say something
quite different in some instances. Take for example, the first
commandment.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
It does not say that we may have no other gods, it says that none can
come before Him. In other words, we
Lightbulbs & X-tians
Steve, that's situational ethics. "It is all right to do so-and-so
under THESE circumstances, but wrong to do them under THOSE
circumstances (i.e., during ancient time as opposed to during modern
times). Either a thing is unethical, or it is not. If it is not
ethical now, it was not ethical then.
Maybe You Can Tell Me
So if the flood happened, you would expect many civilizations to have
an account of it. THINK, MAN! According to the flood myth, there was
NOBODY LEFT TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT EXCEPT NOAH AND HIS FAMILY! So how did
all these accounts get written all over the world?
Disproving the flood is hardly proving a negative. There is zero
evidence of a global deluge. Such an event would leave MUCH evidence.
Such an event would have rendered ALL the species
Assurance
Are you sure it was three days? Accounts vary on this issue. Are you
sure she was a virgin? We've been through that one already, and MUCH
evidence has been presented to you regarding whether or not Mary had an
intact hymen at the time of her impregnation, whether you want to
accept the evidence (or even bother to check it out for yourself) or
not. As for him rising from the dead, there is a difference of opinion
among
One God
More crap out of the Council of Nicea. The Council declared a trinity
in order to finesse the obvious problems in creating a monotheistic
religion without the concept. The "we" that is mentioned in Genesis 1,
and the Elohim (note the plural) mentioned in Genesis were an artifact
of the pantheistic roots of both Judaism and Christianity. THAT is
your roots, Steve, whether you want to admit it or not. There is no
trinity. Christ never said there was a
Inconsistencies #2
How many days between the crucifixion and resurrection? Are the
discrepancies in those accounts minor and have no effect on doctrine?
How did Judas die? At whose hand? While this has nothing to do with
doctrine, I do think that a few more of these would leave one question-
ing the credibility of the source of their doctrine. If they couldn't
get such things as how the betrayer of Jesus died, why should I trust
what they say about how
Evidence?
Well, if I do a REAL stretch, I can agree with you; otherwise I can't.
There were many Christian sects prior to the Council of Nicea, but
there was no "church" in the sense that we use that word today. Some
of the sects were Jewish, some were Gentile. They all have very
distinct ways of expressing their Christianity, and all were quite
different more different than, say, the Branch Davidians and the
Unitarians in some instances. The Council
Dss
There are many ancient writings that were not included in the canon many of them infinitely more interesting and enlightening than those
that were included. Many of them were not included because they were
gnostic. There's the Book of Mary and the Book of Thomas, for example.
I have an idea you would find out more about your bible from reading
the excluded books than you ever will from reading those that were
included. Their omission tells a tale