[Seekers] Punishment
Joseph Crea Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net
Mon, 2 Mar 1998 03:43:15 +0000 (00888831795, 19980302034312.AAA15275@LOCALNAME)
Hello, Ward, Linda et al!
At 01:22 PM 3/1/98 -0600, Ward Fenley wrote:
>Linda wrote:
>>
>> My Dear Friends,
>>
>> Why does it seem that in the "church world" everything must be
>> "absolute"... black and white... right and wrong. We all know in the REAL
>> world there is good and bad in everyone. There is some truth in many things
>> and some falsehood in all things.
WARD
>Ok, without the Bible, prove to me that anyone's definition of "right"
>and "wrong" is absolute.
>
>Linda, if I walk over and kill Chuck in cold blood, try to prove to me
>without the Bible that it's wrong. You can't, cause without the Bible
>you have no absolutes.
Gee, Ward, from here it looks like you are saying that there are NO moral
rules/commandments/guidelines/what-have-you in any other books ancient or
modern. May I direct your attention to the Gathas and Zend Avesta of
Zoroaster, the "gospel" of Mani, the Hindu Vedas and Vedanta, the Institutes
of Manu, the Buddhist Tripitaka, the Confucian "Classics", the Japanese
Nihongi, and more? Go take a look at what they have to say, and then come
back and SUBSTANTIATE your apparent assertion that no moral absolutes exist
outside the Bible.
WARD
>Linda, for so long you have believed in preterism, but you cannot tell
>me its the truth with your view. At least be consistent. Don't pull a
>Davey and pick and choose what you believe is the word of God.
>>LINDA
>> Many would assert that the Bible is ABSOLUTE truth yet its very own pages
>> nullify that assertion. They illustrate damnation and salvation but the
>> stories portray the guilty as being delivered (David and Uriah) and the
>> innocent and best... punished and persecuted (Christ).
>WARD
>Again, without the Bible, who are you to tell me its wrong to steal?
>Because society says so?????? Absurd. Some societies teach it is very
>proper to eat your babies. So then now it's a cultural ISSUE????? Right!
CREA
You say that "Some societies teach it is very proper to eat your
babies"? I think you're showing an absolute disregard for the truth here
and repeating unsubtantiated rumours and allegations. If you can provide
reputable sources for this scurrilous assertion, I'll offer an apology and a
retraction, but until then, you're just another two-bit gossip and liar in
my book.
However, on reflection, you just may be absolutely right [but I really
doubt it]. There may well be some societies that teach it is right to eat
your babies [again, I doubt it]. But my sources (which I'm sure are every
bit as reliable as yours) identify those societies as being comprised of
Christians, and that they indulge in this disgusting practice (and others
equally repulsive) at their "love feasts" when they accept a new member to
their nefarious ranks! This dirty little secret was divulged by the noted
Roman rhetorician Marcus Cornelius Fronto (100-166 CE) [quoted by Minicus
Felix in the __Octavius__, 9.5-6.; included in __The Ancient Christian
Writers__, vol. 39, edited by G.W. Clarke, New York, 1974 and cited in R.
Joseph Hoffman's __Celsus on the True Doctrine__] who reported:
"A young baby is covered over with flour, the object being to deceive
the unwary. It is then served before the person to be admitted to the
rites. The recruit is urged to inflict blows onto it [which] appear to be
harmless because of the covering of flour. Thus the baby is killed with
wounds that remain unseen and concealed. It is the blood of this infant --
I shudder to mention it -- it is this blood that they lick with thirsty
lips; the limbs they distribute eagerly; this is the victim by which they
seal the covenant."
CREA
You see, I can sling mud with the best of them, and better yet, I can
document my aspersions and base canards. Your turn!
>>LINDA
>> But does God punish a person twice? Once in this world... and again in a
>> burning hell forever? Where does the Bible teach this?
>
>WARD
>That is why I utterly deny that Christ died for everyone. That is
>injustice, for it would mean He was punished and yet unbelievers would
>still be punished. Universal atonement is an abomination. Even the
>self-proclaimed "Jews" on this list don't believe that OT sacrifices
>were for the dog Gentiles. They were limited to the Old Covenant people
>of God.
>
>Morality, Linda, Morality! I have not met a skeptic who can answer the
>issue of determining ANY absolute morality. Why? figure it out, and when
>you can come up with the answer, you let me know, and please don't give
>the "God told me so through special revelation" argument. You know that
>won't wash.
CREA
Then may I suggest that you trot down to your local library and see if
you can locate a copy of Thomas Nagel's __The Last Word__ (Oxford
University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-19-510834-5) in which he mounts a spirited
defense of objectivism in relation to language, logic, science and ethics.
With Mettaa,
Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>