THE FUNDY MYTH OF ORIGINAL PERFECTION

/ Topic >  Re: A Question about the Bible / ChristWatch Forum > Bible - The New Testament / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 6 Jan 2000 /
.
] On 12Dec1999 lfinghin wrote: <snipsome> I always thought that most Christians thought the
] Bible was pretty much absolutely accurate and true in every respect.
.
 erasmian say: Dear lfinghin, most still do. This is largely because they do not bother themselves overmuch to read the darn thing. And those who do read it, do not bother themselves overmuch to study the darn thing. And those who do study it, do not bother themselves over-much to think critically about the darn thing; or at least pay some modicum of attention to what the bible scholars have to say about it. Allow me to present our mutual friend James here as exhibit A ...
.
] Being a somewhat rational person it appeared to me (and still appears) that such a view
] is very hard to defend.
.
 There is no defense for gross stupidity!
.
] Anyway, to the question about the Bible: are there any mainstream churches that do not hold that the
] Bible is absolutely accurate? Or is this pretty much a characteristic of all Christian churches - although
] emphasized much more in some, than in others? <snip-rest>
.
 There are many churches here in Canada that adopt a progressive and enlightened approach to the scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican/Episcopal churches are but two of the more popular anti-churches that not only maintain that the Bible is NOT *absolutely* accurate, but also that it can even be (ie. when not interpreted according to the dictates of the Church) a positive source of evil (eg. they attribute "homophobia" to a non-episcopal reading of the scriptures). Other churches (like the Quakers, for example) likewise place other things above and beyond the scriptures. Thus we can say that, for the Cats, tradition supersedes the authority of scripture. For the CofE (& her daughter whores), reason supersedes the authority of scripture. And for the Quakers, individual conscience and fancy supersedes the authority of scripture. Of course, there are many churches that go to the opposite extremes and imbue the Holy Book with qualities and attributes proper to God alone. Frankly, I'm not sure which group of apostate pseudo-Christians makes me want to hurl more!
.
> On 12Dec1999 James replied: lf, Here is the truth about your question.
.
 Uh oh. Here is a classic opening of ignorant buffoons who fancy that they know all there is to know about anything and everything relating to scripture. It invariably means that the smelly stuff is about to fly in abundance. Therefore let us strap on our helmets, insert our nose plugs, hunker down, and see if this is so ...
.
> The apostle Paul stated at 2 Ti 3:16,
.
 There is no truth in this statement, as everyone who is the least bit educated regarding the authentic epistles of Paul knows very well that 2Timothy was NOT written by Paulos of Damascus. Thus your credibility as a dispenser of truth is already shot to hell; and you haven't even started yet . . .
.
> "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
> righteousness" (NIV). Notice he didn't say all 'copies' of Scripture were God-breathed, he just
> said "All Scripture is God-breathed".
.
 Notice that this is not at all relevant to the specifics of lf's queries? Talk about not paying attention. This guy is more interested in mouthing off in the most pompous fashion possible than in actually addressing the questions and concerns here placed before us!
.
> That means that the ORIGINAL writings were directly inspired by God and thus were errorless and
> "absolutely accurate and true in every respect."
.
 Oh really? And where is your evidence for this absurd declaration, eh? Have you seen any of the original MSS? No? Have you ever bothered to investigate the matter? No? Have you studied P52? Who? It is perhaps the *ONLY* fragment of an original NT book that we have; and it is notable for having several minor typos (spelling errors). YES! Typos in the original MS of John's gospel! Will wonders never cease?!
.
> But today we have NONE of those originals.
.
 We have P52 you ignoramus! Ever think to examine the evidence *before* you go yapping about things you know nothing about?
.
> We have only copies of copies. Thus a SMALL amount of errors can be found in the manuscript copies
> that the Bibles are translated from. But usually, those errors are not doctrinal, but grammatical.
.
 There are also sundry additions, emendations, commentaries and notes slipping in from the margins, displaced verses (and sometimes even entire passages), discrete units (eg. fragments of letters) thrown together with no rhyme or reason, many and various types of editorial errors and changes, deliberate (though pious) corruptions of the text, etc etc etc. 'Not doctrinal' my furry buttocks! The very shape of the canonical format of the scriptures is itself "doctrinal". Why don't you take a basic introductory course on textual criticism, James. That way you might actually have some idea about what you're talking about.
.
> In the past, those who copied the Bible's writings were meticulous in making sure that they
> copied it correctly. In some cases they even counted all the letters to make sure none were
> missed. Bible scholars who have studied the many copies of copies, have found very little changes.
> <snip two tasty tidbits from two top-notch textual critics>
.
 In other words, the history of the transmission of the scriptures is *mostly* reliable. Great!
... But just how does this mean that the Bible is (or rather, was) perfect and inerrant?
.
> Thus the evidence speaks for itself.
.
 The evidence does, sure. But your interpretations of it leave *much* to be desired!
.
> We can be confident that the Bible we have today contains the  messages that the
> original inspired writers penned. -- Sincerely, James
.
 Really? We may have the original words, more or less (at least in the edited and untranslated Koine script); but that is a far cry from saying that their messages are crystal clear and easily available to any potential reader of the *translated* (ie. corrupted) English Bible. Thus your glib confidence doth astound me. Especially in the light of the fact that there is no one (including especially bible scholars) who is able to correctly identify the authors of many of the early Christian scriptures (eg. James, Jude, 2Peter, 1Clement, 2Clement, Barnabas, Hebrews, etc etc). Thus if 99% of all Christians are utterly ignorant of when and where these books came from, and also grossly misled about who wrote them and why, then what are the odds that you (poor ignorant sod that you are) and we are nevertheless able to correctly divine the meanings intended by these unknown (though mostly not unnamed) authors?
.
 If you fancy that you are able to discover the one (and only one) divinely intended meaning of any passage or verse regardless of all this, then I'd ask you to put your money where your fat mouth is by answering this one simple question: Who are the 'Ones of Old' that the prophet Judas refers to in his canonical epistle 'Jude'? If you can *correctly* answer even this one small question, then perhaps you can convince me that you might possibly have some small ability to read the sacred text. Yes, reading the words is one (easy) thing. Reading them with knowledge and understanding, ah yes, that's another thing entirely!

/ Topic > Re: the veracity of the written Word. / Date >  25 Feb 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet, alt.christnet.bible,
/ alt.christnet.public, alt.christnet.religion , alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christianity, talk.religion.misc, alt.bible /
.
> On 17Feb00 Glen Bradley wrote: <snipsome> That, in fact, is the very reason we have the Bible today
> ... to prevent us from having our own vision influenced by demons who would lead us away from the
> will of God. If we do not have the faithful witness of the Bible, then we can be led astray by all kinds
> of wicked demonic influences masquerading as the voice of God. <snip>
.
 erasmian say: Not only masquerading as the voice of God (such as our many apostate churches); but also as the voice of the Wicked One (ie. so-called Satanists); and also as the voice of Reason (ie. atheists). We get all kinds here in cyber-space!
.
> There is no reason to consider the Bible as less than it actually is,
.
 Or *more* than it actually is ...
.
> unless there is something contained within it that we do not agree with...
.
 Anyone who claims that there is nothing therein that they do not disagree with is a horrible liar!
.
> and if there is something contained within it that we do not agree with; as spoken of as
> coming from God, then we need to change ourselves rather than deciding that the Bible
> is not His revelation. <snip>
.
 Quite right. If we do not ask the aid of the Encourager, then She will not assist us in our readings of the sacred text. And without the assistance of the Holy Spirit none can see the Truth and Beauty and Life that shines through the Word!
.
> The only concession I make concerning the New Testament is that I consider the Gospels and
> Revelation as the Word of our High Priest, Yeshua Moshiach ... and I consider the Pauline epistles
> as the word of our assistant Pastor, the Apostle Paul. Peters epistles I consider to be the word of
> our chief Pastor; and James I consider to be the word of our chief Deacon.
.
 How magnanimous of you. I'll alert the Coalition of Concerned Canadian Christians at once so that they may all express to you their undying gratitude! ... btw: I think that you would do much better if you acknowledged the simple fact that Jacob (ie. the author of 'James') is not a deacon, but rather a prophet (as he plainly tells us at the very start of the book); ie. 'slave' = 'prophet'.
.
> In no way does this mean that they are full of errors; and I certainly feel that they address us today
> as much as they addressed the church on the day they were written.
.
 Of course they do. That is why the Word is Eternal.
.
> Especially James, which is *more* relevant today than the day it was written.
.
 I couldn't possibly agree more! The Book of James is so universal because it is timeless. It leaps out of its historic setting and addresses all believers directly ...  As the prophetic word always does.

> On 24oct Jaltus wrote: <snip> I would also object to the synergism approach, as did Wesley.
> Mankind still is held in thrall by the effects of the fall. <snip>
.
 textman replies: I'm not sure I'm following you 100% here, Jaltus. Are you saying that we're all "held in thrall" by what I can only accurately describe as a mythical event? Are you basing your rejection of Arminianism on a false reading of scripture? On a reading that erroneously supposes that a fictional story ought to be treated as an accurate and detailed historical account of a pre-historic event?! Just how the hell does that work, bud? Is the measure of faith to be based upon the strength of one's emotional attachment to a seemingly logical line of reasoning that is fundamentally and ultimately flawed to an irrational extreme?

/ Topic > Re: Many Questions for Jaltus / Forum > TOL > General Theology > Arminianism? / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics / 9 Nov 2002 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: I'm not sure I'm following you 100% here, Jaltus. Are you saying that
>> we're all "held in thrall" by what I can only accurately describe as a mythical event? Are you basing
>> your rejection of Arminianism on a false reading of scripture? On a reading that erroneously supposes
>> that a fictional story ought to be treated as an accurate and detailed historical account of a pre-historic
>> event?! Just how the hell does that work, bud? Is the measure of faith to be based upon the strength
>> of one's emotional attachment to a seemingly logical line of reasoning that is fundamentally and
>> ultimately flawed to an irrational extreme?
.
> On Nov8 Jaltus answers: Not in the least. First off, I am not rejecting Arminianism, I am rejecting
> a type of it. I am a Wesleyan Arminian, not a Remonstrance Arminian.
.
 textman say: I'm very sorry, Jaltus, but the significance of this distinction escapes me. :(
.
> Next, are you saying that the fall never happen,
.
 "The Fall" is NOT an objective external event of long-ago. Rather, it tells the story of all of us. We *are* Adam. We *are* Eve. We are always tempted, always biting the forbidden fruit, always being ejected from paradise by angry angels with flaming swords! What is the meaning of Torah if it does not tell your story and mine?! Jacob is not the only one who wrestles with angels, or glimpses the cosmic ladder leading up to God only knows where. Where is Cain and Able, Abraham and Moses? There! Walking the streets of New York, London, Paris, Moscow, Peking. Their stories are our stories because they are we, and we are they.
.
> that mankind does not sin?
.
 Right. "mankind" does not sin because "mankind" is a conceptual category conceived as some eternal and external reality that can be dealt with apart from reference to daily life. But since there is no such supra-mundane entity called "mankind", of course it cannot sin. The only thing that can and does sin is the individual human person. Whether sins are collective, corporate, or private, hardly changes the fact that in reality sins arise from out of the human heart, and are not imposed upon us, unless we consent to let it be so.
.
> If you are, then you are the one who needs help, not me.
.
Well, Jaltus, you surely can't expect me to reform the Faith without a great deal of help from other believers! :)
.
> In fact, logic shows that, if one believes in the Christian God, one must believe the claims
> of scripture. After all, the Christian God cannot lie, and the Bible is His word.
.
Yes, the Bible is *part* of the divine Logos, and therefore technically His Word . . . *BUT* it is ALSO our Word, because we too are also part of the Logos (ie. by virtue of the Implanted-Word (see Jm 1:21); by which grace we are made in His "image"). Only when the Logos-within is in harmony with the Logos-without can the Spirit manifest in "power and glory". Check it out.
.
> Therefore, the Bible cannot be wrong. Pretty simple concept, isn't it?
.
It's not a concept at all, friend Jaltus. It IS an argument leading from premise to conclusion. And in this case all the steps of the argument that you find so iron-clad are, in fact, dismally inadequate. Especially in the face of the plain fact that the bible IS wrong ... IF read from a consistently literal and simplistic viewpoint. That is, the Fundy viewpoint. Which is only to say, the scribal viewpoint; for fundies are to the scribes-of-old as catholics are to the pharisees. Therefore, pick up your NT and read. Wherever you see the word 'scribe' substitute 'fundy', and wherever you see the word 'pharisee' think 'catholic'. Yes, this exercise will give you some idea of what the Lord thinks about the current condition of Christianity-in- the-World-Today . . .
.
> Admittedly, you can deny a premise, but then you are no longer what historically is called
> a Christian, you are heterodox.
.
 I do not need to deny any premise to reject the conclusion that the Bible cannot be wrong. Rather, I reject that claim on the basis that the Bible in reality contains many and various errors, slips, additions, commentaries, insertions, etc, etc. Thus the fact that this and that copy of the Holy Bible IS imperfect *and* badly translated and *very* badly edited compels us to conclude that your iron-clad logical argument is necessarily flawed!
.
 And the flaw lies in your reduction of complexity to simplicity; which is *always* unwarranted, whether we are considering large things or small. In this case, your error lies in the assertion that "the Bible is His word". This is not entirely accurate, Jaltus. In fact, God's Word is above all the written-Logos, being our Lord, the Alpha and Omega, and as such cannot be contained in any finite material object, but is best revealed in Jesus Christ, who is also the Living Word.
.
 Therefore the Bible can only be the Word of God in a far more limited way, in a far more finite and concrete way; none of which rules out the historical and worldly nature of the documents in question. Thus the scriptures are inspired, but NOT infallible; true, but NOT inerrant! That is the only sensible conclusion that a more rational understanding of the Word of God leads to. Believe it or be damned!

P.S. "For this I was born, and for this I have come into society: to witness to the truth.
Everyone who belongs to the truth hears my voice." (Jn 18:37)

Thus spoke the LORD to me, while he grasped me by the hand, and warned me not to
walk in the way of this people: "Nought that this people call holy shall you call holy;
And what they fear you shall not fear, Nor shall you dread! But the LORD of hosts -
him shall you call holy; He shall be your fear, and he your dread! For to both the houses of
Israel shall he prove a holy place: A stone to strike against, and a rock to stumble upon;
A trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; And many shall stumble thereon,
and shall fall; Shall be broken, and snared, and taken." -- Isaiah 8:11-15 / Chicago Bible

/ Topic > Re: Isaiah On Cats / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum > ChristWatch - Biblical Prophecy / Date > 3 Nov 1999 /

> On 2Nov99 Bill Hennessee wrote: textman: your gracious apology is accepted.
.
 textman say: Dear Bill, thou art most kind, sir!  :)
.
> BTW: High Middle Ages is the term for the period in Western Europe from 1000 to 1347 c.e.
> Sorry, I put on my "historian" hat all to readily.
.
 Are you now claiming to know more about church history than the cyber-prophet?
I think that is *most* unlikely, sir.  :)
.
> And you said: "Your little snippet is certainly accurate enough, as far as it goes. And it clearly
> demonstrates that grace is a central feature of the biblical theology of the second century
> Egyptian-Christian prophets." So let me get this right? You attribute James 2:13b NRSVA to
> an Egyptian of the 2nd century?
.
 Actually, and to be precise, I attribute the entire book of James (and also 1Clement) to the same early second-century
Egyptian-Christian prophet called Jacob.
.
> You are saying that James the brother of Jesus did NOT write the letter attributed to him?
.
 That's right. Since the book of James was written from Alexandria after 100CE the likelihood that it was written by
Jesus' brother of the same name is exactly nil.
.
> That's a new one to me.
.
 Oh yes. The cyber-prophet is just full of many new and strange ideas about the scriptures!
.
> Certainly the Anchor Bible vol 37 points to similarities with First Clement,
.
 Yes, but the true meaning and significance of these similarities completely escapes the bible scholars (due
mainly to a serious and terminal case of constipation of the imagination).
.
> however Clement was bishop of ROME and wrote it in 95 c.e.
.
 There is no real evidence that 1Clement was written in 95 or 96CE. That is merely a guess based solely on the assumption that the epistle must be from the first century (it's not). In the same way, the idea that 'Pope' Clement of Rome wrote 1Clement is a *deduction* derived from the *false* evidence that it was written from Rome before the turn of the first century. Once we clear away both the false date and false place of composition erroneously attributed, we are then able to allow the evidence of the text of 1Clement to suggest that its author is none other than the author of the book of James!
.
> And why do you have seem to have difficulty with the concept of my signature quote?
.
 Because your interpretation implies that judgment and justice are no longer relevant to the People of God.
.
> Did not Christ extend us graceful mercy on the cross instead of allowing us to suffer the deserved
> judgement of death?
.
 Yes, salvation is offered to all ...
But it is granted only to those that believe on Him *and* who also obey His commands!
.
> As for Isaiah referring to RCC, I think myself and others have commented sufficiently.
.
 I think NOT!

/ Re: Isaiah On Cats / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum > ChristWatch - Biblical Prophecy / Date > 7 Nov 1999 /
.
> On 4Nov99 Bill Hennessee wrote: textman said to me: "Are you now claiming to know
> more about church history than the cyber-prophet? I think that is *most* unlikely, sir."
> Fine. How many degrees do you have in history?
.
 textman say: Dear Bill, I have no degrees in anything. However, I do not consider this much of a handicap,
as I have found that degrees are one thing, and knowledge another.
.
> How many years have you spent in that field?
.
 Well, I've been studying church history, I guess, for about twenty-five years or more. It's an area of concern that
I never grow tired of investigating, because I find the many curious byways of church history to be endlessly
fascinating in every conceivable way.
.
> I have more than one degree from accredited universities and one IS in history.
.
 But it's NOT in *church* history, right?
.
> My principle area of expertise is the ancient and near eastern world.
.
 An interesting field of inquiry, to be sure; but church history is quite distinct as to time period & subject matter.
For example, the following question would be better directed to you than to a church historian: Why were the
Assyrians so mean and brutal in all their warlike enterprises?
.
> BTW, how detailed an examination have you made into the Anchor Bible, i.e. how many
> volumes have you read and critiqued?
.
 I have read (or at least poked my nose into) about half the many available volumes; but I have written formal
critiques of only a few of these (ie. perhaps half a dozen or so).
.
> How much do you know about the expertise of the various contributors?
.
Enough to know that most of them are well-known and respected in their various areas of expertise (ie. they
usually know whereof they speak).
.
> I don't mean polemic bombast either.
.
 In general, I find the AB commentaries quite reliable and informative. However, these commentaries are by no
means the final word on the scriptures; and no one volume is flawless in any case.
.
> And as St. Forest of the Gump said: "And that's all I have to say about THAT."
> Now pass me the shrimp.
.
 And as the cyber-prophet sayeth: When it comes to the scriptures, there's always something more to say!

/ Re: Isaiah On Cats / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum > ChristWatch - Biblical Prophecy / Date > 7 Nov 1999 /
.
> On 7Nov99 Marc wrote: Bill and Textman: Bill, just because someone does not have a degree does
> not mean that they can not know something of value. Textman, I have been playing musical
> instruments for 32 years. I am a semi-pro player (which means I'm barely good enough to get paid
> a little) and my musical ability comes by hard work not talent.
.
 textman say: Dear Marc, my ability to read the scriptures (and write about them) comes by hard work AND talent!
.
> One thing I learned early on is it doesn't matter how long you practice, if you practice improperly,
> you will play it wrong. Which is my way of saying that a degree from a good university shows a level
> of scholarship and training that you can not automatically disdain.
.
 Having seen at first hand the nature and workings of universities and Christian colleges, I can say without
hesitation that a degree does NOT demonstrate ANY level of *real* scholarship (and/or critical thinking)! Such
institutions reward memorization and parroting, and do not (because they cannot) teach anyone HOW to think
like a scholar (let alone what it *means* to be a bible scholar). Therefore, degrees and diplomas and sundry
official recognitions impress me not at all ...
.
> In neither case does a degree or 25 years of study without a degree mean either of you are correct.
.
 That is correct. The truth of things must always be determined on the basis of the evidence provided by the
primary sources (ie. the sacred texts themselves).
.
> On the other hand, I always find it interesting that the cultists, heretics and those that hold a divergent
> view from orthodox Christianity (hyper-calvinists, hyper-dispensationilism, etc. etc.) are always the first
> to claim that proper training, whether it is from a seminary or a university and commentaries from
> classically recognized Christian sources are not to be trusted.
.
 I tend to agree. Universities and seminaries do not exist to the end of providing knowledge for the sake of knowledge;
but rather for providing the training and skills needed by those entering this or that vocation or career or ministry.
.
> Can a person learn to be a medical doctor by years of undirected self study?
.
 Possibly a very exceptional person could ...
.
> Sure, it is possible. Would you want that person to operate on you?
> Only if there were not a real doctor around and it was a matter of life and death.
.
 In that case, such a person would probably save your life!
.
> I commend you for your years of self study textman, but you hold some beliefs that you
> admit are not necessarily held by others.
.
 So what? Truth never was a matter of counting noses.
.
> Bill I commend you for your degrees, the work that went into them and the discipline
> necessary to achieve them. It doesn't mean textman is 100% wrong.
.
 Or even 1% wrong ...  :)
.
> But textman, for the record, if a matter of interpretation comes up and the anchor bible commentaries
> and the commentaries I use (Expositor's, Calvin, Luther, Henry, etc.) agree, I would favor the Anchor
> bible over your personal interpretations.
.
 I can certainly understand why one would wish to do so. However, in most cases one would be in error to do this. Scholarship does not stand still. Our knowledge of the scriptures is constantly growing and self-correcting; largely through the efforts of individual scholars who do not rest easy on the consensus already gained. Thus even the Anchor Bible occasionally issues new (and presumably improved) commentaries on books that have already been dealt with.
.
 In other words, one is better served not by comfortably accepting certain views and opinions simply because they come from a recognized authority, but by exercizing your critical faculties and thinking things through for yourself. In my opinion, the evidence contained within the sacred texts are *primary* in any investigation of the scriptures; and so come before (and *vastly* outweigh) anything and everything that any and all authorities may have to say about it ...

 Well, it seems that after eight years of steady & systematic research into the matter of which is the best church, veteran police officer Jim Amsing gave up on being a Protestant pastor, and instead elected to become a "fierce defender of Catholic teachings" (Western Catholic Reporter, 23Nov98, 'Police officer took road to Rome', p3). Says copper Jim: "The true faith was in the Catholic Church." ... 'was' may be the operative word here, since the last eight years of my research has led to the conclusion that true faith is nowhere to be found in the Woman-Catholic Church of Canada.
.
 Is it all relative then? A simple matter of 'point of view'? After all, Amsing grew up within the Christian Reformed Church, whilst I spent my first 40 years in RCC. So if you're on the outside looking in, it's thumbs-up; while if you're on the inside looking out, it's thumbs down? ... Does this make any sense to anyone? Maybe it should. Different experiences lead to different perspectives, and different assumptions, about many things. And to further complicate matters: perception is not only intentional, but what is chosen to be perceived in the first place is also very much intentional (albeit unconsciously for the most part).
.
 So then, it looks bad for such things as 'true faith', and 'true church', and 'true' anything. Absolute truth in any way, shape or form seems lost in the abundance and richness of human experience and imagination. Can we both be right? Enlightened and progressive Christians of all sorts will tend to accept the paradox (thinking theological conundrums pragmatically irrelevant in any case); while conservatives and fundies will generally prefer to assume that one is more right - or wrong :) - than the other  ...
.
 Yes, there are many answers to simple questions. Which is the 'true' church? What is the essence of 'true' faith? Who is this Jesus (aka Christ) anyway? ... Many seek their answers to such-like questions in many odd places: Scripture, theology, priests, liturgy, openings, enthusiasm, charismata, piety, philosophy, etc ... oh my. As for myself, true faith resides in accepting and acknowledging a simple fact: that Jesus of Nazareth is Teacher & Savior & Lord. And the true church is a spiritual reality that exists only in the hearts of True Believers.
.
 But Officer Amsing - rather than examining the hearts, minds, and lives of the church's leaders and teachers and pastors and ministers and mentors etc - reaches his conclusions from studying catechisms and encyclicals and such-like 'official' documents ... The prophet sayeth: 'Good Grief!' Perhaps more Christians should reflect on the parable of building houses on foundations of sand. ... Yet copper Jim seems very sure of his foundations: "I was dragged kicking and screaming into this Church", he says. Well, I guess we're agreed on one thing after all, because that's the only way I'll ever go into any church that so zealously favors the Wicked One!

/ Date > 10 March 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /

 So I can forgive the Church of the Poisoned Mind & Twisted Heart ... <snip> In the Book of Revelation She is described in detail so that we may recognize Her when She appears; so that we may come out of Her ... Lest we unwittingly give support and comfort to Her, and so partake of Her manifold iniquities, and thus be judged among Her legions of corrupt and faithless servants. Therefore you have no excuse! Nor will your blindness, ignorance, and oh so laudable piety save you from the wrath to come (in the Day of the Lord). So open wide your hardened hearts, and understand the words of the prophet John:
.
 (17:3) And the messenger carried me away (in spirit) into a wilderness [ie. North America], and I saw a Woman [ie. the Woman-Church] sitting on a scarlet beast (filled with blasphemous names) having seven heads and ten horns [ie. Canada]. (4) And the Woman was clothed in purple and scarlet [ie. the robes of apostate bishops], and gilded with gold and precious stones and pearls [signifying the wealth of the romish-church], holding a golden cup in her hand [ie. the cup that never runs dry, the sacred chalice wherein wine is transformed into christ's blood], being full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication [ie. priestcraft]. (5) And on her forehead a name was written: "Mystery (Babylon the Great), the Mother of Whores, and of the Abominations of the Earth." (6) And I saw that the Woman was drunk on the blood of the saints and witnesses of Jesus [ie. all those prophets and believers who for centuries have been tortured and killed because of their 'heresy']. And having seen Her, I marveled with great wonder . . .
.
 (18:1) After these things I saw another angel (having great authority) coming down from heaven [ie. a messenger or prophet whose words are 'in the air' or 'on the Net']; and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. And he cried out in a strong voice saying: "Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the Great; for it has become a habitation of demons, and a prison of every unclean spirit, and every unclean bird, and every unclean beast. And it became detestable because all the nation's have drunk the passionate wine of Her fornications [including, for example, infant baptism]. And the kings of the earth committed fornication with Her [ie. church and state working together to mutual benefit], and the merchants and corporations became rich from the resources of Her luxury." [ie. the church is fundamentally and essentially a corporation chiefly concerned with money and numbers and 'the bottom line']
.
 (4) Then I heard another voice [ie. the Logos] coming out of heaven saying: "Come out of Her, My People, so that you may not participate in Her sins, or receive the plagues of Her; because Her sins are piled up (reaching up to heaven) [eg. financial, theological, sexual scandels, etc]. And God has remembered Her crimes and unrighteousness. (6) Therefore render unto Her as She has rendered, and double the portion according to Her works [ie. the church's good-works do not even half-cover the pain She has caused]. In the cup which She mixed, mix for Her a double portion. (7) So much as She glorified Herself [eg. the pope wears god's name: 'holy father'], and lived in luxury [eg. the pope sits inside his palace within his own private mini-city], give as much torment and grief to Her [ie. don't be afraid to criticize catholicism]! Because in Her heart She says: 'I sit as a queen. And I am not a widow. And I will never see grief.' [the romish-church is powerful ... and knows it!] (8) Therefore, one day the plagues will come upon Her; grief and famine and death. And with fire She will be burned up; because the Lord-God (the one having judged Her) is strong!" -- Revelation 17:3-6; 18:1-8 / Prophet Version
.
  They who have ears, let them hear!

/ Topic > Re: Archbishop says internet undermines church authority / Date > 6 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
] Besq quoted: <snip> Archbishop Quinn warned that Catholic web sites will need to adapt to the taste,
] language, needs and psychology of today's audience, in order to remain attractive. <snip>
.
> 28SW2 (Michael Cecil) wrote: Translation: They will have to learn how to LIE and to package those lies
> ATTRACTIVELY (or with sufficient threats of HELL-FIRE for those who choose not to believe such nonsense).
.
 textman replies: Dear Michael, not necessarily. Threats of hell-fire are considered in bad taste among *all* the post-modern, consumer-driven churches. So it's unlikely that any major denomination will go that route. However, the good archbishop is certainly right in saying this much: "We have not yet begun to imagine what [the Internet] will mean for the Church. But without doubt its impact will be immense" (Assembly 2000 address, Quinn).
.
 I tend to agree. So even if many are beginning to turn away from the Net (because of the gross and overbearing domination of business and porn), the potential of the WWWeb for Believers (and for the Faith in general) remains *unbounded*. I mean, just think about it: any believer equipped with a modem-laden PC can go online and plug into the greatest assembly of believers ever gathered together in one place! In cyber-space the normal RW constraints of time and space simply do not apply, and therefore there is no limit to the prayers and activities of this phenomenal cyber-assembly. Praise and thanksgiving are not limited to Sunday's, but rather continue round the clock 24/7! ... Is there any church anywhere that dares claim to do likewise?
.
 This super-assembly never ceases to talk about the Faith: to discuss, debate, dismiss, defend, disrespect, declare, *and* fight over the Faith; to learn about the Faith, its rich history and pagent of impossible heroes and saints; to question the various ideas, doctrines, and sundry in's and out's of the Faith. What mere denomination can offer any believer such unlimited potential for spiritual growth, for deepening our knowledge of the Word, and for all manner of faith-expression? ... None!
.
 That's why they are all scrambling to establish a presence on the Net. And in order to do that, they will have to come up with attractive web-sites that will hold the interest of the cyber-saints long enough to make an impression on them. Easier said than done, I think :D ... As for learning how to lie attractively, the plain truth is that the Cats (and most other churches also) have a long tradition of effective lying about things. So they really don't have all that much to learn in that regard, if you know what I mean.

P.S. So I turned my attention to the Lord God so as to implore him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. I prayed to the LORD my God, confessing in this way: "O Lord, great and wondrous God who keeps covenant fidelity with those who love him and keep his commandments, we have sinned, behaving with iniquity and wickedness, and we have rebelled by turning away from your commandments and judgments. We have not paid attention to your servants the prophets, who spoke as your representatives to our kings, leaders, and fathers, and to all the inhabitants of the land as well." -- Book of Daniel 9:3-6 / NETbible

textman