NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21898

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 5.1 KB

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21898 alt.messianic:3795
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Path: sparky!uunet!hfsi!ata
From: [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:50:39 GMT
Lines: 103

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO) writes:

>>>Fine.  I read the Gospels and conclude that to be like Jesus I must destroy
>>>things like he did to fig trees.  Thus the Crusaders were behaving in a
>>>Christ-like manner.
>>Did you really come to this conclusion?
>
>Of course I came to this conclusion.  You don't think this is the _first_ time
>I posted to this newsgroup mentioning the fig tree, do you?  (Or more
>accurately, I conclude from the Gospels that to be like Jesus means one of
>several different things, which aren't always consistent with one another, and
>_one_ of those things _is_ to destroy things like Jesus destroyed a fig tree.)
>
>You see, I don't pick and choose.

I guess the question is, did you read the action of Jesus's curse
of the fig tree in context?  Both Matthew and Mark give similar
but not identical accounts but both have an explanation of what
Jesus was trying to show, i.e.  faith.  So your're right, don't
pick and choose but look at the actions in their context and
totalilty.

>
>>>>There seems to be a notion that the fights that different
>>>>Christian denominations have with one another were over the basic
>>>>values of Jesus.
>>>Of course, the fights were over other things _also_, but the disagreement over
>>>the basic values of Jesus _did_ have _something_ to do with it.
>>Such as?
>
>I can't parse this.  What are you asking for examples of?

Which basic values of Jesus have people fought over?


>Either the Inquisitors contested the values you mention, or by having
>peculiar standards of mercy and such they contested what the values mean.  The
>result is pretty much the same, as far as being able to tell who's a Christian:
>I can't.

It has nothing to do with whether they were Christian and
everything to do with their judgement and discernment.  The
Inquisitors were Christian, but as mentioned many times before
their behaviour does not necessarily have anything to do with a
Christ-like behaviour.

>
>>>Many Christian denominations also accept these values, but disagree on what
>>>they mean--exactly what does mercy or compassion _mean_?  Many Christians
>>>do things in the name of mercy or compassion that other Christians think are
>>>not merciful or compassionate.
>>Hmm, here we go again with the self paralysis.  We just say that it's
>>impossible to define XYZ because two people in the universe might have
>>a difference of opinion of its meaning under certain circumstances.
>
>It's not just a difference of opinion--it's that it's an important, big,
>widespread difference of opinion.  It's one with millions of people on either
>side.

Welcome to the human race, Ken.  People will always interpret any
teaching in different ways.  Some people are honest and sincere,
but just mistaken (I have been mistaken in my life many times, and
most assuredly still am).  Others twist a teaching to suit their
purpose and agenda.  This has nothing to do with Christianity per
se and everything to do with humans.  If you disagree, please give
examples of teachings which are in complete agreement by every
human being.

>
>>Random House Dictionary:
>>Compassion - a deep feeling of sympathy for another persons suffering or
>>misfortune.
>>Mercy - 1 - Compassion shown towards an offender or enemy.
>>        2 - A disposition to forgive or forbear.
>>Now given the above definition, what problem do you see?
>
>Well, for one, those definitions don't define sympathy, misfortune, or
>offender, and again millions of people differ on what those mean.  ("offender"
>is a particularly bad one).  The definitions also say nothing about actions,
>so unless you believe that no actions are compassionate you've given me
>incomplete definitions--and of course millions of people disagree on what
>actions are compassionate, too.

Oh Ken, surely you know the difference between a noun and an
adjective.  Does the definition of every noun have to include all
the ways that it can be used as an adjective?  Yes, acts can be
compassionate if they are based on a feeling of sympathy for
another persons suffering or misfortune.  Now, did I really have
to explain this?

If you want further definitions of words, I would heartily recommend
looking them up.

>--
>Ken Arromdee ([e-mail], [e-mail])


--
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  [e-mail]
HFS, Inc.          VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive     MS:601       |    Voice:    [phone]
McLean, VA  22102               |      FAX:    [phone]