In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
>>>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
>>>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>>>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
>>>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
>>>How would you interpret that?
>>Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
>>"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
>>"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
>>But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
>>has to be taken literally?
>Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
>he wants...there's an idea....

And it's an idea that has probably been used each time the bible has
been translated.

>>How do you know every passage still has
>>merit today?
>How do you know it doesn't?

Because the bible was written in less enlightened times. The
anti-homosexual views, for instance, clearly have no logic to them at
all and have no place in a modern society. Just look at the way you
guys keep avoiding my challenges to justify those rules.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:26:28 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
>>>>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
>>>>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>>>>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
>>>>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
>>>>How would you interpret that?
>>>Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
>>>"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
>>>"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
>>>But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
>>>has to be taken literally?
>>Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
>>he wants...there's an idea....
>
>And it's an idea that has probably been used each time the bible has
>been translated.

Interesting. Do you have any proof whatsoever for that? Recent texts
of the Bible are constantly found and they're remarkably similar. In
fact, the Bible is one of the most "known" books of the first century
- there are thousands of independent copies floating around. And they
all say the same or a very similar thing. If your suggestion was
correct, we'd have *WILDLY* different interpretations in mainstream
use - yet we don't. So...prove it.

>>>How do you know every passage still has
>>>merit today?
>>How do you know it doesn't?
>
>Because the bible was written in less enlightened times. The

A matter of opinion.

>anti-homosexual views, for instance, clearly have no logic to them at
>all and have no place in a modern society. Just look at the way you
>guys keep avoiding my challenges to justify those rules.

Why should we? You believe it's OK to sleep with animals. With that
in mind, what concievable objection could you possibly have to
sleeping with another human being? Situational morality at its
best...

In article <j31jgvk79c4nfpc1c0fbllaqacsfkpuclr[at]4ax.com>, foo
<foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:26:28 +0200, C Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>
> >In article <5ilggv4f608i5dtgiik5ct0e40bprknp7v[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:35:34 +0200, C Lund
> >><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >>>>>>But all people who read it as its written do.
> >>>>>How do you know that's the "right" way to read it?
> >>>>9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> >>>>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> >>>>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> >>>>How would you interpret that?
> >>>Which translation is that? I've never actually seen the word
> >>>"homosexual" in a bible passage before. Usually it's something like
> >>>"men who lieth with men as they had been women" or some such thing.
> >>>But no matter what the exact phraze is; how do you know every passage
> >>>has to be taken literally?
> >>Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
> >>he wants...there's an idea....
> >
> >And it's an idea that has probably been used each time the bible has
> >been translated.
>
> Interesting. Do you have any proof whatsoever for that? Recent texts
> of the Bible are constantly found and they're remarkably similar. In
> fact, the Bible is one of the most "known" books of the first century
> - there are thousands of independent copies floating around. And they
> all say the same or a very similar thing.

Gah, can't find my copy of Ken's Guide to the Bible. It compared
different current translations, including the Good News Bible. That
version softened much of the sex and "offensive" parts, making
everything much more... well, good.

> If your suggestion was
> correct, we'd have *WILDLY* different interpretations in mainstream
> use - yet we don't. So...prove it.
>
How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
reasonably wildly different interpretations.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>, foo
<foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>
> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)

Must you be baptised as an adult? Are graven images of Jesus and others
allowed? Should Saints be worshiped, or just God? Will every person who
follows Jesus go to heaven, or just 144,000? People have interpreted
the Bible to say both sides of each of those questions.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:38:17 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
wrote:

>In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>, foo
><foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
>> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>>
>> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
>> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
>
>Must you be baptised as an adult? Are graven images of Jesus and others
>allowed? Should Saints be worshiped, or just God? Will every person who
>follows Jesus go to heaven, or just 144,000? People have interpreted
>the Bible to say both sides of each of those questions.

OK - please quote chapter and verse for those questions, and
denomination. Thanks!

In article <7d1kgv0ime8mvu3sd0fi0gsaj2pm3f5ll1[at]4ax.com>, foo
<foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:38:17 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>, foo
> ><foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
> >>
> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
> >
> >Must you be baptised as an adult? Are graven images of Jesus and others
> >allowed? Should Saints be worshiped, or just God? Will every person who
> >follows Jesus go to heaven, or just 144,000? People have interpreted
> >the Bible to say both sides of each of those questions.
>
> OK - please quote chapter and verse for those questions, and
> denomination. Thanks!

Chapter and verse? I'll be honest, I don't have the time to search
through and do the work, and why a sect believes a certain thing can be
very complicated (where in the Bible was the justification for Limbo?
Got me). Feel free to ignore my contribution to this thread :)

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>
> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)

Does that include all the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects? Or
do you wish to arbitrarily narrow the field?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <7d1kgv0ime8mvu3sd0fi0gsaj2pm3f5ll1[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:38:17 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>, foo
> ><foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
> >>
> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
> >
> >Must you be baptised as an adult?

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?discussionID=57391

"baptism should come after you have made a decision to accept Jesus as
your savior and serve God.The Bible says "believe and be baptised"...ask
youself this...did you believe when you were baptised as an infant?"

"It is unecessary and no reasonable church would ask it because
Christian faith believes in one Baptism for the remission of sins."

http://www.revelations.org.za/Bap.htm

"The Bible is very clear on the fact that Baptism was never administered
to children, and the  churches that do so,  are following a tradition
brought forth by the Roman Catholic Church.  This tradition has
absolutely no Scriptural authority whatsoever. "

> > Are graven images of Jesus and others
> >allowed?

That depends on what part of the Bible you read
http://www.carm.org/diff/Exodus20_5.htm

The Orthodox churches makeplenty of icons -- images of saints and others
-- and several Protestant sects, for instance, have just the cross but
not an image of Jesus on them.


> > Should Saints be worshiped, or just God?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp has an interesting
discussion on the meanings of various words, to serve as just an example
of how the Bible is differently translated.

Protestant sources are fairly adamantthat saints are not to be
worshipped.

> > Will every person who
> >follows Jesus go to heaven, or just 144,000?

http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR153.htm

Revelation 7 mentions twelve tousand from each of the twelve tribes of
Israel, but 9 says it was so many people they could not be numbered.

> > People have interpreted
> >the Bible to say both sides of each of those questions.

> OK - please quote chapter and verse for those questions, and
> denomination. Thanks!

I've provided some links, and these have citations to the Bible. That
will have to suffice.

I cannot accept the wholesale dismissal of any particular belief based
solely on the denomination of its proponents because there is no
objective test for a "True Christian."

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>
> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)

In Catholicism, the wine and bread of Communiion *is* the blood and
flesh of Jesus Christ through which you gain eternal lifef. In
Protestantism, it merely *represents* it. Wars have been fought over
this difference. (And Christians are either actual or symbolic cannibals
and vampires.)

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <j31jgvk79c4nfpc1c0fbllaqacsfkpuclr[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
>>>he wants...there's an idea....
>>And it's an idea that has probably been used each time the bible has
>>been translated.
>Interesting. Do you have any proof whatsoever for that? Recent texts
>of the Bible are constantly found and they're remarkably similar. In
>fact, the Bible is one of the most "known" books of the first century
>- there are thousands of independent copies floating around. And they
>all say the same or a very similar thing.

Yes: "Or very similar..."

> If your suggestion was
>correct, we'd have *WILDLY* different interpretations in mainstream
>use

Why?

>- yet we don't. So...prove it.

What we do know is that the bible is interpreted in wildly different
ways. Just look at the main schisms in Xtianity.

>>>>How do you know every passage still has
>>>>merit today?
>>>How do you know it doesn't?
>>Because the bible was written in less enlightened times. The
>A matter of opinion.

No, people were less enlightened back then. They knew less about
chemistry, less about biology, less about anything. Religion was used
to bridge the gaps in their knowledge. Those gaps have since been
filled by science.

>>anti-homosexual views, for instance, clearly have no logic to them at
>>all and have no place in a modern society. Just look at the way you
>>guys keep avoiding my challenges to justify those rules.
>Why should we?

Are you asking why you should justify your beliefs? You should at
least be able to do so for your own sake, let alone the sake of your
fellow human beings.

> You believe it's OK to sleep with animals. With that
>in mind, what concievable objection could you possibly have to
>sleeping with another human being?

Again; what's wrong with it?

> Situational morality at its
>best...

What do you mean by that?

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:44 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
>> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>>
>> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
>> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
>
>Does that include all the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects? Or
>do you wish to arbitrarily narrow the field?

Go for it. I certainly won't hold you back.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:05:12 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <7d1kgv0ime8mvu3sd0fi0gsaj2pm3f5ll1[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:38:17 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>, foo
>> ><foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
>> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>> >>
>> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
>> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
>> >
>> >Must you be baptised as an adult?
>
>http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?discussionID=57391
>
>"baptism should come after you have made a decision to accept Jesus as
>your savior and serve God.The Bible says "believe and be baptised"...ask
>youself this...did you believe when you were baptised as an infant?"
>
>"It is unecessary and no reasonable church would ask it because
>Christian faith believes in one Baptism for the remission of sins."
>
>http://www.revelations.org.za/Bap.htm
>
>"The Bible is very clear on the fact that Baptism was never administered
>to children, and the  churches that do so,  are following a tradition
>brought forth by the Roman Catholic Church.  This tradition has
>absolutely no Scriptural authority whatsoever. "

Good point - base what you do on Scripture.

>> > Are graven images of Jesus and others
>> >allowed?
>
>That depends on what part of the Bible you read
>http://www.carm.org/diff/Exodus20_5.htm
>
>The Orthodox churches makeplenty of icons -- images of saints and others
>-- and several Protestant sects, for instance, have just the cross but
>not an image of Jesus on them.

We've already been over the Catholic bit.

>> > Should Saints be worshiped, or just God?
>
>http://www.catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp has an interesting
>discussion on the meanings of various words, to serve as just an example
>of how the Bible is differently translated.
>
>Protestant sources are fairly adamantthat saints are not to be
>worshipped.

Good point - one would hope the answer would be based in scripture
rather than a particular church's interpretation.

>> > Will every person who
>> >follows Jesus go to heaven, or just 144,000?
>
>http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR153.htm
>
>Revelation 7 mentions twelve tousand from each of the twelve tribes of
>Israel, but 9 says it was so many people they could not be numbered.

Good point - I don't know.

>> > People have interpreted
>> >the Bible to say both sides of each of those questions.
>
>> OK - please quote chapter and verse for those questions, and
>> denomination. Thanks!
>
>I've provided some links, and these have citations to the Bible. That
>will have to suffice.

They're good links, and you've got a good point on the last one.

>I cannot accept the wholesale dismissal of any particular belief based
>solely on the denomination of its proponents because there is no
>objective test for a "True Christian."

Woofbert wrote:

> In article <7d1kgv0ime8mvu3sd0fi0gsaj2pm3f5ll1[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>>OK - please quote chapter and verse for those questions, and
>>denomination. Thanks!
>
>
> I've provided some links, and these have citations to the Bible. That
> will have to suffice.
>
> I cannot accept the wholesale dismissal of any particular belief based
> solely on the denomination of its proponents because there is no
> objective test for a "True Christian."
>

Even more interesting is to follow the changes in philosophy,
iconography, politics and interpretations _within_ a denomination over
time. There will always be a spectrum of faith as there is a spectrum
of people who have this faith.
This change is perhaps a better reflection of the critical stresses and
challenges of the times than following the reporting of historical events.
These changes in dogma and faith follow a Darwinian path to accommodate
pressures from external forces- power, economics, public fear and
comfort, in order to survive. The most rigid of faiths often fade when
the times change.
My particular interest is in the assimilation of pagan ideals, symbols
and values in a conquering culture/church. It is easier to accept this
assimilation than to defeat a system of faith (short of destroying all
that have this faith). This, easement of ideals, allows for the
assimialtion of people into a church and spawns new sects of people
unwilling to accept the changes. So, it can be argued that expanding a
basis of faith to more people necessitates a modicum of change in that
faith, while simultaneously cementing the faiths of those unwilling to
accept new views.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:16:20 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article <j31jgvk79c4nfpc1c0fbllaqacsfkpuclr[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>>Well, one could just roll his own translation and make it say whatever
>>>>he wants...there's an idea....
>>>And it's an idea that has probably been used each time the bible has
>>>been translated.
>>Interesting. Do you have any proof whatsoever for that? Recent texts
>>of the Bible are constantly found and they're remarkably similar. In
>>fact, the Bible is one of the most "known" books of the first century
>>- there are thousands of independent copies floating around. And they
>>all say the same or a very similar thing.
>
>Yes: "Or very similar..."

Point out a few differences if you believe they are there, then.

> If your suggestion was
>>correct, we'd have *WILDLY* different interpretations in mainstream
>>use
>
>Why?

Because once the books surfaced, people who wanted to disprove the
Bible would jump at the chance and publish the 'changed' Bible.

>>- yet we don't. So...prove it.
>
>What we do know is that the bible is interpreted in wildly different
>ways. Just look at the main schisms in Xtianity.

Schisms in what?

>>>>>How do you know every passage still has
>>>>>merit today?
>>>>How do you know it doesn't?
>>>Because the bible was written in less enlightened times. The
>>A matter of opinion.
>
>No, people were less enlightened back then. They knew less about
>chemistry, less about biology, less about anything. Religion was used
>to bridge the gaps in their knowledge. Those gaps have since been
>filled by science.
>
>>>anti-homosexual views, for instance, clearly have no logic to them at
>>>all and have no place in a modern society. Just look at the way you
>>>guys keep avoiding my challenges to justify those rules.
>>Why should we?
>
>Are you asking why you should justify your beliefs? You should at
>least be able to do so for your own sake, let alone the sake of your
>fellow human beings.
>
>> You believe it's OK to sleep with animals. With that
>>in mind, what concievable objection could you possibly have to
>>sleeping with another human being?
>
>Again; what's wrong with it?
>
>> Situational morality at its
>>best...
>
>What do you mean by that?

Whatever works is 'OK'.

In article
<christopher.lund-C0DD09.12162008072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

> In article <j31jgvk79c4nfpc1c0fbllaqacsfkpuclr[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >>anti-homosexual views, for instance, clearly have no logic to them at
> >>all and have no place in a modern society. Just look at the way you
> >>guys keep avoiding my challenges to justify those rules.
> >Why should we?
>
> Are you asking why you should justify your beliefs? You should at
> least be able to do so for your own sake, let alone the sake of your
> fellow human beings.

Atthe very least, Foo, your unwillingness to justify your beliefs on
rational grounds makes those beliefs seem seem irrational. Why should
anyone else ffollow them?


> > You believe it's OK to sleep with animals. With that
> >in mind, what concievable objection could you possibly have to
> >sleeping with another human being?
>
> Again; what's wrong with it?
>
> > Situational morality at its
> >best...
>
> What do you mean by that?

Foo is repeating a common straw-man argument set up by Christians
fearful of humanist moral systems. For instance, Lawrence Kohlberg
studied moral development and identified six stages of moral
development. The last stage is trufly frightening to people whose
morality is based on the word of God: Essentialy, there are no rules; a
moral dilemma is solved by creating a solution that one would accept no
matter which party in the conflict one was. (In other words, a refined
restatement of the Golden Rule.)

Such a system requires thought and analysis, and it doesn't always yield
the same answers. It's terribly difficult to teach that to people who
are barely out of the stage of, "If I don't get punished for it, it's
good," comfortable in "If it's good for my famiuly, it's good for me,"
and just beginning to come to grips with "If it's according to the
rules, it's good." According to Kohlberg's research, those folks cannot
understand "We make the rules," let alone "There are no rules."

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:15:37 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article
><christopher.lund-C0DD09.12162008072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>
>> In article <j31jgvk79c4nfpc1c0fbllaqacsfkpuclr[at]4ax.com>,
>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >>anti-homosexual views, for instance, clearly have no logic to them at
>> >>all and have no place in a modern society. Just look at the way you
>> >>guys keep avoiding my challenges to justify those rules.
>> >Why should we?
>>
>> Are you asking why you should justify your beliefs? You should at
>> least be able to do so for your own sake, let alone the sake of your
>> fellow human beings.
>
>Atthe very least, Foo, your unwillingness to justify your beliefs on
>rational grounds makes those beliefs seem seem irrational. Why should
>anyone else ffollow them?

If you don't want to, don't.

>> > You believe it's OK to sleep with animals. With that
>> >in mind, what concievable objection could you possibly have to
>> >sleeping with another human being?
>>
>> Again; what's wrong with it?
>>
>> > Situational morality at its
>> >best...
>>
>> What do you mean by that?
>
>Foo is repeating a common straw-man argument set up by Christians
>fearful of humanist moral systems. For instance, Lawrence Kohlberg
>studied moral development and identified six stages of moral
>development. The last stage is trufly frightening to people whose
>morality is based on the word of God: Essentialy, there are no rules; a
>moral dilemma is solved by creating a solution that one would accept no
>matter which party in the conflict one was. (In other words, a refined
>restatement of the Golden Rule.)
>
>Such a system requires thought and analysis, and it doesn't always yield
>the same answers. It's terribly difficult to teach that to people who
>are barely out of the stage of, "If I don't get punished for it, it's
>good," comfortable in "If it's good for my famiuly, it's good for me,"
>and just beginning to come to grips with "If it's according to the
>rules, it's good." According to Kohlberg's research, those folks cannot
>understand "We make the rules," let alone "There are no rules."

In article <lfslgv43pjervtjsord18g8crb1jhsshk9[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:44 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
> >>
> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
> >
> >Does that include all the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects? Or
> >do you wish to arbitrarily narrow the field?
>
> Go for it. I certainly won't hold you back.

All right, then. Here you go. These people know a lot more about it than
you or I: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm .

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm has some interesting
insights into Christianity's habit of splintering.

Certainly there is a very wide range of beliefs which can all be called
Christian. And not all of them consider homoseuxality or homosexual
behavior a sin.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:18:39 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <lfslgv43pjervtjsord18g8crb1jhsshk9[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:44 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
>> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>> >>
>> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
>> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
>> >
>> >Does that include all the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects? Or
>> >do you wish to arbitrarily narrow the field?
>>
>> Go for it. I certainly won't hold you back.
>
>All right, then. Here you go. These people know a lot more about it than
>you or I: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm .
>
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm has some interesting
>insights into Christianity's habit of splintering.
>
>Certainly there is a very wide range of beliefs which can all be called
>Christian. And not all of them consider homoseuxality or homosexual
>behavior a sin.

What do the majority say? I'm not interested in what an offshoot of
the church, formed largely to promote an agenda (for example, OK'ing a
given behavior) thinks.

In article <ka9mgvk7vsft8f4m6gtlpkgor5a0k2hs3v[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:18:39 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <lfslgv43pjervtjsord18g8crb1jhsshk9[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:44 GMT, Woofbert
> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
> >> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
> >> >>
> >> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
> >> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
> >> >
> >> >Does that include all the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects? Or
> >> >do you wish to arbitrarily narrow the field?
> >>
> >> Go for it. I certainly won't hold you back.
> >
> >All right, then. Here you go. These people know a lot more about it than
> >you or I: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm .
> >
> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm has some interesting
> >insights into Christianity's habit of splintering.
> >
> >Certainly there is a very wide range of beliefs which can all be called
> >Christian. And not all of them consider homoseuxality or homosexual
> >behavior a sin.
>
> What do the majority say? I'm not interested in what an offshoot of
> the church, formed largely to promote an agenda (for example, OK'ing a
> given behavior) thinks.

I don't know. They seem to be evenly split on the issue. The liberal
religious folk tend not to make as much noise as the radical
conservatives.

On the other hand, I didn't realize that Christian doctrine was
somehting that could be voted on by a majority of self-proclaimed
Chrstians -- especially when there's so much infighting on what really
is Christian.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:44:20 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <ka9mgvk7vsft8f4m6gtlpkgor5a0k2hs3v[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:18:39 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <lfslgv43pjervtjsord18g8crb1jhsshk9[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:44 GMT, Woofbert
>> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
>> >> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
>> >> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
>> >> >
>> >> >Does that include all the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects? Or
>> >> >do you wish to arbitrarily narrow the field?
>> >>
>> >> Go for it. I certainly won't hold you back.
>> >
>> >All right, then. Here you go. These people know a lot more about it than
>> >you or I: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm .
>> >
>> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm has some interesting
>> >insights into Christianity's habit of splintering.
>> >
>> >Certainly there is a very wide range of beliefs which can all be called
>> >Christian. And not all of them consider homoseuxality or homosexual
>> >behavior a sin.
>>
>> What do the majority say? I'm not interested in what an offshoot of
>> the church, formed largely to promote an agenda (for example, OK'ing a
>> given behavior) thinks.
>
>I don't know. They seem to be evenly split on the issue. The liberal

I don't think they're 'evenly split' in anyone's mind, Woofbert. But
whatever man says, I think the Bible is the source of the information,
so I suggest you go with what that says if you want to know what
people would follow.

>religious folk tend not to make as much noise as the radical
>conservatives.
>
>On the other hand, I didn't realize that Christian doctrine was
>somehting that could be voted on by a majority of self-proclaimed
>Chrstians -- especially when there's so much infighting on what really
>is Christian.

What does the Bible say?

In article <jjcmgvgae3utuiq4us52rbpg6bvidfv556[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:44:20 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ka9mgvk7vsft8f4m6gtlpkgor5a0k2hs3v[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:18:39 GMT, Woofbert
> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <lfslgv43pjervtjsord18g8crb1jhsshk9[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:44 GMT, Woofbert
> >> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
> >> >> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
> >> >> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Does that include all the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects? Or
> >> >> >do you wish to arbitrarily narrow the field?
> >> >>
> >> >> Go for it. I certainly won't hold you back.
> >> >
> >> >All right, then. Here you go. These people know a lot more about it than
> >> >you or I: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm .
> >> >
> >> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm has some interesting
> >> >insights into Christianity's habit of splintering.
> >> >
> >> >Certainly there is a very wide range of beliefs which can all be called
> >> >Christian. And not all of them consider homoseuxality or homosexual
> >> >behavior a sin.
> >>
> >> What do the majority say? I'm not interested in what an offshoot of
> >> the church, formed largely to promote an agenda (for example, OK'ing a
> >> given behavior) thinks.
> >
> >I don't know. They seem to be evenly split on the issue. The liberal
>
> I don't think they're 'evenly split' in anyone's mind, Woofbert.

Well, certainly not in the minds of people who claim to have at once the
correct interpretation of the Bible and the weight of the majority
behind them. That's all right-thinking folk, you know.

> But
> whatever man says, I think the Bible is the source of the information,
> so I suggest you go with what that says if you want to know what
> people would follow.
>
> >religious folk tend not to make as much noise as the radical
> >conservatives.
> >
> >On the other hand, I didn't realize that Christian doctrine was
> >somehting that could be voted on by a majority of self-proclaimed
> >Chrstians -- especially when there's so much infighting on what really
> >is Christian.
>
> What does the Bible say?

All these Christian sects don't seem to be able to agree on that.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:42:28 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <jjcmgvgae3utuiq4us52rbpg6bvidfv556[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:44:20 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ka9mgvk7vsft8f4m6gtlpkgor5a0k2hs3v[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:18:39 GMT, Woofbert
>> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <lfslgv43pjervtjsord18g8crb1jhsshk9[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:44 GMT, Woofbert
>> >> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <uqgjgvkde5fgn8v74gmu49mdekl9kdfqbd[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:13 -0400, Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >How many different Christian sects are there? That sounds like
>> >> >> >> >reasonably wildly different interpretations.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Care to point out a few significant differences? (I'd really like to
>> >> >> >> know...) (Among Christian sects, please.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Does that include all the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects? Or
>> >> >> >do you wish to arbitrarily narrow the field?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Go for it. I certainly won't hold you back.
>> >> >
>> >> >All right, then. Here you go. These people know a lot more about it than
>> >> >you or I: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm .
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm has some interesting
>> >> >insights into Christianity's habit of splintering.
>> >> >
>> >> >Certainly there is a very wide range of beliefs which can all be called
>> >> >Christian. And not all of them consider homoseuxality or homosexual
>> >> >behavior a sin.
>> >>
>> >> What do the majority say? I'm not interested in what an offshoot of
>> >> the church, formed largely to promote an agenda (for example, OK'ing a
>> >> given behavior) thinks.
>> >
>> >I don't know. They seem to be evenly split on the issue. The liberal
>>
>> I don't think they're 'evenly split' in anyone's mind, Woofbert.
>
>Well, certainly not in the minds of people who claim to have at once the
>correct interpretation of the Bible and the weight of the majority
>behind them. That's all right-thinking folk, you know.

Of course.

>> But
>> whatever man says, I think the Bible is the source of the information,
>> so I suggest you go with what that says if you want to know what
>> people would follow.
>>
>> >religious folk tend not to make as much noise as the radical
>> >conservatives.
>> >
>> >On the other hand, I didn't realize that Christian doctrine was
>> >somehting that could be voted on by a majority of self-proclaimed
>> >Chrstians -- especially when there's so much infighting on what really
>> >is Christian.
>>
>> What does the Bible say?
>
>All these Christian sects don't seem to be able to agree on that.

There have been wars fought on far less, but then, as now, it was man
doing the fighting or splitting. The words are clear.

Josiah Fizer <jfizer[at]classy.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:33:35 -0400, proto[at]panix.com (Walter Bushell)
> wrote:
>
> >Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jjcmgvgae3utuiq4us52rbpg6bvidfv556[at]4ax.com>,
> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:44:20 GMT, Woofbert
> >> > <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> ><Snippers>
> >
> >> > >
> >> > >I don't know. They seem to be evenly split on the issue. The liberal
> >> >
> >> > I don't think they're 'evenly split' in anyone's mind, Woofbert.
> >>
> >> Well, certainly not in the minds of people who claim to have at once the
> >> correct interpretation of the Bible and the weight of the majority
> >> behind them. That's all right-thinking folk, you know.
> >>
> >> > But
> >> > whatever man says, I think the Bible is the source of the information,
> >> > so I suggest you go with what that says if you want to know what
> >> > people would follow.
> >> >
> >> > >religious folk tend not to make as much noise as the radical
> >> > >conservatives.
> >> > >
> >> > >On the other hand, I didn't realize that Christian doctrine was
> >> > >somehting that could be voted on by a majority of self-proclaimed
> >> > >Chrstians -- especially when there's so much infighting on what really
> >> > >is Christian.
> >> >
> >> > What does the Bible say?
> >>
> >> All these Christian sects don't seem to be able to agree on that.
> >
> >That's because, books cannot talk as I said earlier.
> >
> >Go with the G5 or a used G4 only if the price is _good_.
>
> Not true, the Necronomicon tells me what to do all the time. However I
> chose to ignore most of its suggestions since the one time I listened
> I got into all sorts of trouble.
>
>
=---
Thank goodness the Bible and you are not on speaking terms.

--
Walter It is difficult to get a man to understand something," wrote
Upton Sinclair, "when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Walter