I received this email today (27 June 2003):
~~~
Pastor,
I've tried in vain to find a Christian newsgroup somewhere other than
America where the Lord is exalted and His Word honored (even if debated). I
started with the uk.r.c group, but most keep arguing why the sins which the
Bible clearly names aren't really sins and of course He wasn't serious
(pseudo-intellectualizing, I call it). I really like the people, and will
continue to befriend them--but it has left me despairing for our world. So
I went scouting around, and came to the aus.r.c.--and was even more
appalled! Please give me an encouraging word, or suggestion of some
inspirational Christian NG outside the US? Any thoughts?
By the way, I've bookmarked your wonderful website. Thanks for all you do
for Him!
[Name withheld].
~~~
Dear friend,
To my knowledge there are only three Christian newsgroups accessible through
Usenet which address a wide range of topics, and in which you would feel 'at
home'
All three lists are moderated.
They are
1. bit.listserv.christia. I lost my connection somehow a year or two back
but I've just reconnected. It has a broad appeal, (used to) tend towards
conservative evangelicalism (but with bios from a wide range of Christian
traditions)
Their most recent 'Managing your subscription' post says: 'To control the
mail you receive from christia, and interact
with the rest of the subscribers aim your web browser at:
http://lists.asu.edu/archives/christia.html
and click on the link that says "Join or leave the list (or change
settings)".
2. soc.religion.christian. High-level discussions with a strong Catholic
component from my knowledge of it.
3. uk.religion.christian - also moderated. And, yes, happy-hunting-ground
for Christian (and other) mainly English intellectuals.
You have to realize that unmoderated Usenet newsgroups (like
aus.religion.christian) attract spammers who like an audience, or people who
sincerely try to argue their case but don't realize they are out of their
depth. And some highly intelligent posters who've hung in there, and when
you get to know their names you'll have an interesting time following their
discussions.
Now, re aus.religion.christian. Several of us got this newsgroup going some
years ago, and have been trying ever since to find someone with the right
skills and time and access to the right equipment to retro-moderate it, or
moderate it by another route, and we've not been successful. But if you hang
around, you'll get the gist of who discusses what with whom with what kind
of intelligence.
Hint: there are currently three highly intelligent atheists who post
regularly to this group and who are worth reading. One is a university
lecturer - and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of their
depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying to go several rounds too
many with this poster (who in my view has a high degree of integrity).
Another university lecturer (recently retired) from the same state as the
aforementioned is worth reading: his strengths are (also) in the area of
science and Christianity. And there are some others who are entertaining/
stimulating - for different reasons. There are, however, two or three other
Christians/theists and atheists posting here who aren't worth reading, 'cos
they're either mostly belligerent (rather than overly rational), or their
cognitive wiring is messed up. I've used my IE 'block sender' on a few of
them. And don't ever respond to any discussion cross-posted to many
newsgroups. They're people who like an audience of any kind, and in real
life would never be able to find one (even when drunk :-). I cross-post
*news* to several *relevant* groups, but I believe there's a different
protocol at work there than for discussions. (Those posts are for people who
pray for persecuted Christians and others, rather than argue about the whys
and wherefores of such persecution. Some regulars on Usenet groups don't
agree with that rationalization, BTW. But then I remind them what these
forums are called - _News_groups).
Of course, apart from Usenet groups there are literally thousands of
discussion-lists out there. Go to http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
and click on Mailing Lists (Internet Links section on the frontpage). Also
you might like to look at http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/link/link0032.htm
. Also put Newsgroups into a Google search of 'this site' (John Mark
Ministries) - or the Keyword index
(http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/kw-index/N.htm) and you'll find a lot of
articles there.
As Winston Churchill said in his second-or-third-most-famous speech: 'Don't
ever ever ever give up!'
(Others no doubt will add their comments to my incomplete depiction of the
Christian newsgroup scenario. I welcome them).
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,100 + articles!)
Once again "Rowland Croucher" <rcroucher@no-spam>
appears incapable of proving to us that his claim to Jesus is something more
than a fraudulent mirage and the basis for Institutionalised vilification as
unconstitutional religious and human rights violation--THE ACCUSATION IS
THAT IS CLAIM TO HYMENEALISM AS MARRIAGE AND GIVEN TO MARRIAGE IS EXPRESSLY
CONDEMNED WITHIN THE SCRIPTURE AND INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM FASCISM--AND CAN
BE OUTRIGHT REJECTED.
There is no need to even despise the act of homosexuality--because the bible
is very clear and so is Jesus [Luke 17:22-30; Matthew 22:29-32; Mark
12:24-27; Luke 20:34 -38] whom you claim not only to believe, but live his
Commandments: "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is
he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is
condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is
not from faith is sin." [Romans 14:22-23]
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war {
To serve in a military campaign; figuratively to execute the apostolate
(with its arduous duties and functions), TO CONTEND WITH CARNAL
INCLINATIONS:-soldier, (go to) war (-fare)
} after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but
mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds {
ie. SUCH AS YOUR IGNORANT AND FALSE INSTITUTIONAL CLAIM TO BEING A
PARTICIPANT IN GOD'S EVERLASTING COVENANT
} Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself
against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to
the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all
disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to
himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as
he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's. For though I should boast somewhat
more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not
for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: That I may not seem as if I
would terrify you by letters. For his letters, say they, are weighty and
powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let
such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are
absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present." [2 Corinthians
10:3 -11]
"And the soldiers {To serve in a military campaign; figuratively to execute
the apostolate (with its arduous duties and functions), TO CONTEND WITH
CARNAL INCLINATIONS:-soldier, (go to) war (-fare)} likewise demanded of him,
saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man,
neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. And as the
people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John {Grace
or Mercy of the Lord}, whether he were the Christ, or not." [Luke 3:14-15]
Without acknowledging their dependency on Judaism as Christianity, Sunday
sacred Christianity has with the reprise of Y2K, no basis in truth. And as
hymeneal occultism is simply: marriage and given in marriage {ie. Mary
worship} which is expressly condemned within Scripture as a violation of the
Everlasting Covenant God made with Israel--The Egyptian basis to much of
what today passes itself off as Christianity, is by contrast a cruel,
judgmental and dispassionate deification of death!
NOTE THE HISTORICAL REFERENCE TO THE CHRISTIAN NEW COVENANT: "'Look,
traitors, and see, and be shocked--amazed--for the Lord is doing something
in your time that you would not believe it if told.' [Habakkuk 1:5; Acts
13:38-42]
This passage refers to the traitors with the Man of the Lie {Philo of
Alexandria's (20 BCE-50 AD) metaphysical view of the Decalogue as rather
resembling the 'Heads of Laws' made use of the Pythagorean Chaldean Occulted
use of Number and the Tetragrammation of YHWH as [72J] + 3(3²+1) /2 =
[72J2W1D] being 457BCE}, because they have not obeyed the words of the
Teacher of Righteousness {ie. The Hebrew/Christian Apostle Paul [Acts
28:17-31]} from the mouth of God. It also refers to the traitors to the New
Covenant, because they did not believe in God's covenant and desecrated His
holy name; and finally, it also refers to the traitors in the Last Days.
They are the cruel Israelites who will not believe when they hear everything
that is to come upon the latter generation that will be spoken by the Priest
in whose heart God has put the ability to explain all the words of His
servants the prophets, through whom God has foretold everything that is to
come upon His people and His land." [1QpHab Col. 1.16-Col. 2.10]
With the experience of religious vilification going on in Australian at
present (of which you are a participant) where Institutional clergy have
indulged themselves on the misfortunes of others which the clergy themselves
have in many instances promulgated, I think it wise for him to cease telling
stories of contrived religiousity and address the more important life
issues.
As you and I share no-common ground regarding your claim to a religious
life, I anticipate that this will probably be one of the last messages I
will receive publicly from you, desire to receive or have necessity to
receive.
- Qolon
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kabbalah/patent.html
"Rowland Croucher" <rcroucher@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3efbd4df$0$30818$afc38c87@no-spam
I received this email today (27 June 2003):
~~~
Pastor,
I've tried in vain to find a Christian newsgroup somewhere other than
America where the Lord is exalted and His Word honored (even if debated). I
started with the uk.r.c group, but most keep arguing why the sins which the
Bible clearly names aren't really sins and of course He wasn't serious
(pseudo-intellectualizing, I call it). I really like the people, and will
continue to befriend them--but it has left me despairing for our world. So
I went scouting around, and came to the aus.r.c.--and was even more
appalled! Please give me an encouraging word, or suggestion of some
inspirational Christian NG outside the US? Any thoughts?
By the way, I've bookmarked your wonderful website. Thanks for all you do
for Him!
[Name withheld].
~~~
Dear friend,
To my knowledge there are only three Christian newsgroups accessible through
Usenet which address a wide range of topics, and in which you would feel 'at
home'
All three lists are moderated.
They are
1. bit.listserv.christia. I lost my connection somehow a year or two back
but I've just reconnected. It has a broad appeal, (used to) tend towards
conservative evangelicalism (but with bios from a wide range of Christian
traditions)
Their most recent 'Managing your subscription' post says: 'To control the
mail you receive from christia, and interact
with the rest of the subscribers aim your web browser at:
http://lists.asu.edu/archives/christia.html
and click on the link that says "Join or leave the list (or change
settings)".
2. soc.religion.christian. High-level discussions with a strong Catholic
component from my knowledge of it.
3. uk.religion.christian - also moderated. And, yes, happy-hunting-ground
for Christian (and other) mainly English intellectuals.
You have to realize that unmoderated Usenet newsgroups (like
aus.religion.christian) attract spammers who like an audience, or people who
sincerely try to argue their case but don't realize they are out of their
depth. And some highly intelligent posters who've hung in there, and when
you get to know their names you'll have an interesting time following their
discussions.
Now, re aus.religion.christian. Several of us got this newsgroup going some
years ago, and have been trying ever since to find someone with the right
skills and time and access to the right equipment to retro-moderate it, or
moderate it by another route, and we've not been successful. But if you hang
around, you'll get the gist of who discusses what with whom with what kind
of intelligence.
Hint: there are currently three highly intelligent atheists who post
regularly to this group and who are worth reading. One is a university
lecturer - and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of their
depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying to go several rounds too
many with this poster (who in my view has a high degree of integrity).
Another university lecturer (recently retired) from the same state as the
aforementioned is worth reading: his strengths are (also) in the area of
science and Christianity. And there are some others who are entertaining/
stimulating - for different reasons. There are, however, two or three other
Christians/theists and atheists posting here who aren't worth reading, 'cos
they're either mostly belligerent (rather than overly rational), or their
cognitive wiring is messed up. I've used my IE 'block sender' on a few of
them. And don't ever respond to any discussion cross-posted to many
newsgroups. They're people who like an audience of any kind, and in real
life would never be able to find one (even when drunk :-). I cross-post
*news* to several *relevant* groups, but I believe there's a different
protocol at work there than for discussions. (Those posts are for people who
pray for persecuted Christians and others, rather than argue about the whys
and wherefores of such persecution. Some regulars on Usenet groups don't
agree with that rationalization, BTW. But then I remind them what these
forums are called - _News_groups).
Of course, apart from Usenet groups there are literally thousands of
discussion-lists out there. Go to http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
and click on Mailing Lists (Internet Links section on the frontpage). Also
you might like to look at http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/link/link0032.htm
. Also put Newsgroups into a Google search of 'this site' (John Mark
Ministries) - or the Keyword index
(http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/kw-index/N.htm) and you'll find a lot of
articles there.
As Winston Churchill said in his second-or-third-most-famous speech: 'Don't
ever ever ever give up!'
(Others no doubt will add their comments to my incomplete depiction of the
Christian newsgroup scenario. I welcome them).
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,100 + articles!)
"Qolon" <telos@no-spam>
So many idiots... What was it you said about "cognitive wiring" being
messed up Rowland? :-)
Plonk.
Theo
Rowland Croucher wrote:
> I received this email today (27 June 2003):
>
> ~~~
>
> Pastor,
>
> I've tried in vain to find a Christian newsgroup somewhere other than
> America where the Lord is exalted and His Word honored (even if debated). I
> started with the uk.r.c group, but most keep arguing why the sins which the
> Bible clearly names aren't really sins and of course He wasn't serious
> (pseudo-intellectualizing, I call it). I really like the people, and will
> continue to befriend them--but it has left me despairing for our world. So
> I went scouting around, and came to the aus.r.c.--and was even more
> appalled!
Hardly surprising. This ng is more harmful to Christianity than it is
beneficial. (if you want my opinion).
> Please give me an encouraging word, or suggestion of some
> inspirational Christian NG outside the US? Any thoughts?
>
> By the way, I've bookmarked your wonderful website. Thanks for all you do
> for Him!
>
> [Name withheld].
>
> ~~~
>
> Dear friend,
>
> To my knowledge there are only three Christian newsgroups accessible through
> Usenet which address a wide range of topics, and in which you would feel 'at
> home'
>
> All three lists are moderated.
>
> They are
>
> 1. bit.listserv.christia. I lost my connection somehow a year or two back
> but I've just reconnected. It has a broad appeal, (used to) tend towards
> conservative evangelicalism (but with bios from a wide range of Christian
> traditions)
>
> Their most recent 'Managing your subscription' post says: 'To control the
> mail you receive from christia, and interact
> with the rest of the subscribers aim your web browser at:
>
> http://lists.asu.edu/archives/christia.html
>
> and click on the link that says "Join or leave the list (or change
> settings)".
>
> 2. soc.religion.christian. High-level discussions with a strong Catholic
> component from my knowledge of it.
>
> 3. uk.religion.christian - also moderated. And, yes, happy-hunting-ground
> for Christian (and other) mainly English intellectuals.
>
> You have to realize that unmoderated Usenet newsgroups (like
> aus.religion.christian) attract spammers who like an audience, or people who
> sincerely try to argue their case but don't realize they are out of their
> depth. And some highly intelligent posters who've hung in there, and when
> you get to know their names you'll have an interesting time following their
> discussions.
>
> Now, re aus.religion.christian. Several of us got this newsgroup going some
> years ago, and have been trying ever since to find someone with the right
> skills and time and access to the right equipment to retro-moderate it, or
> moderate it by another route, and we've not been successful. But if you hang
> around, you'll get the gist of who discusses what with whom with what kind
> of intelligence.
>
> Hint: there are currently three highly intelligent atheists who post
> regularly to this group
Theo Bekkers
Chris Ho-Stuart
Sean McHugh
> and who are worth reading.
Definitely. If you are more interested in atheism than Christianity.
> One is a university lecturer -
Chris
> and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of their
> depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying to go several rounds too
> many with this poster
.. and invariably with nary a helping hand or iota of concern from ministers of
religion such as yourself.
> (who in my view has a high degree of integrity).
> Another university lecturer (recently retired) from the same state as the
> aforementioned is worth reading: his strengths are (also) in the area of
> science and Christianity.
Ken Smith.
> And there are some others who are entertaining/
> stimulating - for different reasons.
me??
> There are, however, two or three other
> Christians/theists and atheists posting here who aren't worth reading, 'cos
> they're either mostly belligerent
Barry O'Grady
> (rather than overly rational), or their cognitive wiring is messed up.
(I'll leave that one alone).
... and then there's Rowland! Rowlands main concern is to make Rowland look good
no matter what.
> I've used my IE 'block sender' on a few of
> them. And don't ever respond to any discussion cross-posted to many
> newsgroups. They're people who like an audience of any kind, and in real
> life would never be able to find one (even when drunk :-). I cross-post
> *news* to several *relevant* groups, but I believe there's a different
> protocol at work there than for discussions. (Those posts are for people who
> pray for persecuted Christians and others, rather than argue about the whys
> and wherefores of such persecution. Some regulars on Usenet groups don't
> agree with that rationalization, BTW. But then I remind them what these
> forums are called - _News_groups).
Posting christian news and prayer requests to a christian newsgroup is quite a
respectable practice. There is no obligation to participate in discussion. The
only proviso I would suggest is that, you being a christian minister, I would
have thought that your participation as support for the christian position or
viewpoint, would be to some degree at least, obligatory.
> Of course, apart from Usenet groups there are literally thousands of
> discussion-lists out there. Go to http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
> and click on Mailing Lists (Internet Links section on the frontpage). Also
> you might like to look at http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/link/link0032.htm
> . Also put Newsgroups into a Google search of 'this site' (John Mark
> Ministries) - or the Keyword index
> (http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/kw-index/N.htm) and you'll find a lot of
> articles there.
There was a web based one posted here recently.. http://www.ChristiansOnline.CC
> As Winston Churchill said in his second-or-third-most-famous speech: 'Don't
> ever ever ever give up!'
>
> (Others no doubt will add their comments to my incomplete depiction of the
> Christian newsgroup scenario. I welcome them).
>
> --
>
> Shalom!
>
> Rowland Croucher
>
> http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
> (Now 10,100 + articles!)
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
"pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFD48F4.48751B3F@no-spam
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
>
> This ng is more harmful to Christianity than it is
> beneficial. (if you want my opinion).
Yes, I appreciate your opinion, and disagree with it. I agree with Chris'
opinion in the next post (well it's the next on my newsreader - I may have
missed some from my blockees :-)
> > Hint: there are currently three highly intelligent atheists who post
> > regularly to this group
>
> Theo Bekkers
> Chris Ho-Stuart
> Sean McHugh
Correct. Each of them makes valuable, and varied contributions here. I like
Theo's (what's the noun for cryptic?)... Sean's thorough responses to
posts - sometimes back several weeks (I don't know whether he reads right
through those threads again to pick up something) and Chris' erudition and
thoroughly researched responses (and, let me say, his increasingly irenic
tone. Chris was, in my view, sometimes too tough with the perpetrators
stupidity earlier. We've talked about that when we had a coffee together in
Brisbane). I have - with Chris's permission - reproduced many of his posts
on our website. Also Ken Smith's (and, previously, Nigel Mitchell's).
> > and who are worth reading.
>
> Definitely. If you are more interested in atheism than Christianity.
I'm interested in robust discussion to examine my faith. An unexamined faith
is not worth having.
> > One is a university lecturer -
>
> Chris
>
> > and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of their
> > depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying to go several rounds
too
> > many with this poster
>
> .. and invariably with nary a helping hand or iota of concern from
ministers of
> religion such as yourself.
>
> > (who in my view has a high degree of integrity).
> > Another university lecturer (recently retired) from the same state as
the
> > aforementioned is worth reading: his strengths are (also) in the area of
> > science and Christianity.
>
> Ken Smith.
>
> > And there are some others who are entertaining/
> > stimulating - for different reasons.
>
> me??
Yes, I'd say so...
> > There are, however, two or three other
> > Christians/theists and atheists posting here who aren't worth reading,
'cos
> > they're either mostly belligerent
>
> Barry O'Grady
>
> > (rather than overly rational), or their cognitive wiring is messed up.
>
> (I'll leave that one alone).
And I'll leave both alone :-)
>
> ... and then there's Rowland! Rowlands main concern is to make Rowland
look good
> no matter what.
I accept that rebuke, and have just referred it to the Lord. If it's true,
I'd better repent. OTOH if, Pedro, you have offered that comment
maliciously, you're in trouble at the Judgment (seriously).
> > I've used my IE 'block sender' on a few of
> > them. And don't ever respond to any discussion cross-posted to many
> > newsgroups. They're people who like an audience of any kind, and in real
> > life would never be able to find one (even when drunk :-). I cross-post
> > *news* to several *relevant* groups, but I believe there's a different
> > protocol at work there than for discussions. (Those posts are for people
who
> > pray for persecuted Christians and others, rather than argue about the
whys
> > and wherefores of such persecution. Some regulars on Usenet groups don't
> > agree with that rationalization, BTW. But then I remind them what these
> > forums are called - _News_groups).
>
> Posting christian news and prayer requests to a christian newsgroup is
quite a
> respectable practice. There is no obligation to participate in discussion.
The
> only proviso I would suggest is that, you being a christian minister, I
would
> have thought that your participation as support for the christian position
or
> viewpoint, would be to some degree at least, obligatory.
I agree, and I do, when I believe I have something to say, and I have the
time. But I'm an amateur philosopher at best (so generally stay out of the
debates about atheism for example) and what I don't know about science fills
volumes (so I generally stay out of the creation/evolution debates). Pedro:
start up a thread on something else, and invite me to respond...
<>
> rgds,
>
> Pete.
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,200 + articles!)
In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
>> In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
>> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >> Pastor,
>> >>
>> >> I've tried in vain to find a Christian newsgroup somewhere
>> >> other than America where the Lord is exalted and His
>> >> Word honored (even if debated). I started with the
>> >> uk.r.c group, but most keep arguing why the sins which
>> >> the Bible clearly names aren't really sins and of course
>> >> He wasn't serious (pseudo-intellectualizing, I call it).
>> >> I really like the people, and will continue to befriend
>> >> them--but it has left me despairing for our world. So I
>> >> went scouting around, and came to the aus.r.c.--and was
>> >> even more appalled!
>> >
>> > Hardly surprising. This ng is more harmful to Christianity
>> > than it is beneficial. (if you want my opinion).
>>
>> Your opinion is welcome, of course. Here is an alternative
>> perspective for consideration...
>>
>> It depends what one considers harmful.
>>
>> This newsgroup would, most likely, come as a bit of a shock to
>> someone whose previous experience of Christian study had been
>> within a church or some group of generally like minded people.
>>
>> But perhaps it is harmful for Christianity to remain sheltered
>> within those safe cloisters.
>>
>> This is a group for discussion of Christianity, rather than a
>> group for discussion by Christians: that is its charter.
>>
>> I offer for consideration the suggestion that it is beneficial
>> for Christianity (and Christians) to be open to a forum such as
>> this where many diverse view points are expressed; and that it
>> is good for Christians, and for the church, to continuously
>> reflect upon their position and consider the responses of those
>> who do not share it.
>>
>> My personal expectation is that this kind of interaction will
>> lead many to reexamine their faith; and almost certainly some
>> will leave it aside as a result. And others may sometimes find
>> a stronger faith, or at least a faith transformed in some way.
>>
>> What is the alternative? I think -- and I expect many leaders
>> in the church would agree with me -- that an unexamined faith
>> can be harmful also, and a group like this can sometimes give
>> a jolt from which people may benefit.
>
> That's all very true of course, but the jolt of which
> you speak, may be one that kicks them out the door! You
> said.. "This newsgroup would, most likely, come as a bit of
> a shock to someone whose previous experience of Christian
> study had been within a church or some group of generally
> like minded people." Well I don't fall into those categories,
> but I was shocked by seeing the disharmony that exists within
> the Christian Church, and the way that Christians, who are
> supposed to be loving, meek, and mild, behave to on another,
> and others in general.
This group may well provide the jolt that kicks someone
out the door; no question. I don't see that as a bad thing,
in general, of course; though it is not my objective to
adminster a jolt with that effect.
My view is that the jolt *itself* is (generally) a goodness.
It comes with a risk (in terms of the church loosing members)
and at a benefit (in terms of gaining members with a better
grounded faith). And for individuals involved, working
through such issues carries its own reward; both for those
who lose faith and those who find it.
> One thing that you seem to fail to realize, is that ppl not
> only benefit by religious faith, but very often need it as
> an integral part of their persona, in order to cope with
> life's issues. Not everyone has the intelligence to nut out
> the issues people such as you discuss here, or the will or
> resolve to journey through life unaided, sustained only by
> reason and intellect in such matters.
I realize that alright; but I do not think the answer is
to discourage groups like this (and I recognize you are not
proposing any such thing).
Also, I don't think what you describe is all that common;
and I don't think the experience of losing faith is usually
a such bad thing for the individual concerned.
People who don't want to discuss generally don't bother:
and there is no reason why they should.
People who are genuinely bewildered to think that anyone
might not believe in God will for the most part benefit
from gaining more appreciation of conflicting views.
The more real concern is, I think, of becoming cemented in
an unreasonable antipathy to others as some kind of reaction.
This can affect believers and unbelievers both. But good
things often come with some sort of risk, and I continue to
think it is, on balance, good for the church to have forums
like this where there is an engagement across faith and
unfaith.
>> [snip]
>> >> and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of
>> >> their depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying
>> >> to go several rounds too many with this poster
>> >
>> > .. and invariably with nary a helping hand or iota of concern
>> > from ministers of religion such as yourself.
>>
>> I am probably the person being spoken of here; so here
>> is my comment.
>>
>> I met Rowland when he came up the Brisbane recently. One
>> of the things we spoke of was, of course, the internet,
>> and some of the people who participate. I was impressed with
>> Rowland's thoughts; they always for the person. His concerns
>> were consistently were the concerns of a pastor.
>
> I know that he is very active as a Christian pastor, but my
> only contact with him is via his participation here.. upon
> which my comments are based.
>
>> I don't think it is true that Rowland has no concern; but more
>> to the point... whom should he help? And how?
>>
>> Recently, I have engaged mainly a series of threads with
>> Lawrence. Lawrence's chosen topic has been atheism. That
>> is strictly speaking off-topic by the group charter, but in
>> practice it is very pertinent, because there are atheists like
>> myself who participate, and that makes nonbelief relevant
>> to the group. Working out a suitable Christian response to
>> unbelievers would, I think, be an excellent subject.
>>
>> Without wanting to resurrect all my discussions with Lawrence,
>> however, I do not think that Lawrence's approach has been
>> particularly constructive.
>>
>> The question is ... what should a minister like Rowland do?
>> Now note that Lawrence's posts are not presenting a standard
>> Christian position, nor were they about Christianity. I have
>> no desire to speak for Rowland on this topic, or drag him into
>> the subject.... but I do think that if we took a wide sample of
>> ministers of religion we'd get a substantial number who would
>> be more closely aligned with the positions I was advocating
>> on that thread than with the positions of Lawrence.
>>
>> And I was not, anywhere in that thread, making an attack on
>> Christianity or Christian belief.
>>
>> Another set of threads I have been engaged in has been on the
>> subject of creationism, with Gladys. Again, mindful that this is
>> a group about Christianity, I have in those threads attempted to
>> point out the flaws and empirical errors with which creationism
>> is riddled, and to DEFEND the many Christians who work in
>> science and who have a faith that is consistent with the basic
>> empirical facts we learn of the Earth and its long history.
>>
>> What should a minister of religion do here? Frankly (and I have
>> said this a couple of times) I would like the church to be more
>> up front with recognizing the theological problems associated
>> with creationism, and the awful dilemma it generates for young
>> Christians who meet up with the whole body of modern learning
>> completely unequipped to reconcile that with their faith.
>>
>> One of the things I want to demonstrate in this group is that
>> robust and strenuous engagement on many topics does not always
>> have to be strictly aligned with believers on one side and
>> unbelievers on the other.
>>
>> [snip]
>> > ... and then there's Rowland! Rowlands main concern is to
>> > make Rowland look good no matter what.
>>
>> I don't think that remark is remotely justifiable.
>
> It was actually a view expressed/comment made by a christian
> to me privately, who has since departed the group, and was
> expressing their concern, as I intimated previously, about the
> lack of support that christians lend each other in discussions
> where they are being assailed by unbelievers, and they said
> that they considered that ministers in particular have more
> responsibility in this regard than the general believer.
I still don't think the remark is remotely justifiable.
It does not surprise me that some believers might be distressed
that they don't get backed to the hilt by ministers; but all too
often this is from believers who are scathingly abusive of any
minister who dares to deviate from a very narrow fundamentalist
conception of what faith involves.
I don't know who you mean of course; that point is that we know
nothing of this person or what they think should be different.
More generally, if you are going to make such highly personal
and confrontational remarks -- dare I say insulting remarks --
which bear upon Rowland's basic integrity as a pastor, then I
think basic decency obliges you to take responsibility for them.
Your remark was an unqualified direct statement about Rowland,
which you presented; and I do not think it is remotely
justifiable; neither by your knowledge of the man, nor by
his posts in this forum.
Rowland does a lot more on the internet than post here; by
the way.
>> >> I've used my IE 'block sender' on a few of them. And
>> >> don't ever respond to any discussion cross-posted to many
>> >> newsgroups. They're people who like an audience of any
>> >> kind, and in real life would never be able to find one
>> >> (even when drunk :-). I cross-post *news* to several
>> >> *relevant* groups, but I believe there's a different
>> >> protocol at work there than for discussions. (Those posts
>> >> are for people who pray for persecuted Christians and
>> >> others, rather than argue about the whys and wherefores
>> >> of such persecution. Some regulars on Usenet groups don't
>> >> agree with that rationalization, BTW. But then I remind
>> >> them what these forums are called - _News_groups).
>> >
>> > Posting christian news and prayer requests to a christian
>> > newsgroup is quite a respectable practice. There is no
>> > obligation to participate in discussion. The only proviso
>> > I would suggest is that, you being a christian minister,
>> > I would have thought that your participation as support
>> > for the christian position or viewpoint, would be to some
>> > degree at least, obligatory.
>>
>> I wonder about that... what is "Christian" viewpoint on
>> creationism, for example? Or the "Christian" viewpoint on
>> Lawrence's "atheism" threads? (My two major contributions
>> in 2003, I think.)
>>
>> In my view, "ministering" or "pastoring" has little to do with
>> preaching; or with debate with those not in your flock.
>
> Not so much with debate, but rather support for
> christians.. just even moral support. We're all human, and if
> we are copping it from all sides for whatever reason, we get
> downhearted, and a word of encouragement to know that others
> share our views, and are with us in spirit, never goes astray.
Sure. But it seems to me that Rowland does just that.
He steers clear of the flame fests, and posts material
which is encouraging and a welcome diversion from the
more contentious topics.
Also, I think it noteworthy that Rowland's concerns are not
just for Christians, but for people in general; including also
the unbelievers. Perhaps even especially the unbelievers.
The dominant emotions of concern here are (IMO) not depression,
but anger. Not that depression does not exist; and perhaps
often it may exist behind the anger we see. But many people
approach these groups with an unhealthy vigour (me inclinded)
and too quickly become aggressive, angry, insulting and
unbelievably rude.
>> There are people on this group who are in all likelihood
>> badly hurt in various ways. It is nearly impossible to help
>> them through the group itself.
>
> I will give you an example if you like. I do not read the
> author Dolf Boek, but I happened to see a post of his when he
> spoke about committing suicide, maybe it was in the heading,
> anyway, I posted and tried to dissuade him from doing that by
> pointing out his obvious talents as a web designer for one,
> and that someone with ability of which that was indicative,
> should be able to make a positive contribution to society if
> he set his mind to it. I was seeking to try to get him to
> adopt a positive view about life. Anyway, he replied that
> I was the only one who had tried to discourage him in any
> way. Others were even encouraging him to kill himself! Shortly
> afterwards I received an email from a christian person,
> praising me for my post. It occurred to me however that
> attempting to dissuade someone from committing suicide,
> is something that a minister of religion should have done.
Good for you -- seriously. A strict hands off approach remains
my choice, however.
Cheers -- Chris
In aus.religion.christian Lawrence Meckan <lmeckan@no-spam> wrote:
> Chris Ho-Stuart <hostuart@no-spam> wrote:
> <snip to point>
>> Recently, I have engaged mainly a series of threads with
>> Lawrence. Lawrence's chosen topic has been atheism.
>
> It wasn't my chosen topic. I have been trying to defend my
> character and integrity against corruption thanks to claims
> people have said against me.
>
> You think I want to discuss atheism ? Heck, no. I'd rather
> discuss ways to develop one's faith out of nothing. I'd
> rather discuss approaches to ministry. I'd rather discuss
> the best way to get the message of the Gospel to those who
> say they lack belief.
My estimation of the matter at hand remains exactly as
stated above: and I did read the rest of your post. But
meta-discussion of discussion noone wants seems pointless,
especially as you would prefer a different topic. Thus I
will not attempt to refute your perceptions or defend mine.
Best wishes -- over and out -- Chris
[snipped the rest]
"pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFEE0E2.F25EA641@no-spam
<>
> I will give you an example if you like. I do not read the author Dolf
Boek, but I
> happened to see a post of his when he spoke about committing suicide,
maybe it was
> in the heading, anyway, I posted and tried to dissuade him from doing that
by
> pointing out his obvious talents as a web designer for one, and that
someone with
> ability of which that was indicative, should be able to make a positive
> contribution to society if he set his mind to it. I was seeking to try to
get him
> to adopt a positive view about life. Anyway, he replied that I was the
only one who
> had tried to discourage him in any way. Others were even encouraging him
to kill
> himself! Shortly afterwards I received an email from a christian person,
praising
> me for my post. It occurred to me however that attempting to dissuade
someone from
> committing suicide, is something that a minister of religion should have
done.
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete.
Two responses, or three.
1. This 'Christian minister' who is supposed to be semi-retired, has about
20 counselling appointments this week. What would be a good guideline/limit,
do you think, given all the people who need help, and given I need to get
some sleep occasionally?
2. Every Christian is a minister...
3. I want to commend you on your sympathy with the person in question.
That's good 'ministry'. Keep it up.
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,200 + articles!)
In aus.religion.christian Rowland Croucher <rcroucher@no-spam> wrote:
[brutal snip of all context]
> Two responses, or three.
>
> 1. This 'Christian minister' who is supposed to be
> semi-retired, has about 20 counselling appointments this
> week. What would be a good guideline/limit, do you think,
> given all the people who need help, and given I need to get
> some sleep occasionally?
I hope noone is expecting you to be a counsellor
to the newsgroup! I mainly see an expectation that a
minister should have a generally supportive approach
for Christians.
But a couple of things strike me as very weird in this.
First: you *do* have a generally supportive approach.
Second: The original expression of "support" was specifically
in the context of people having discussions with me; apparently
suggesting you should be expected to chime in and give
support to the people who are in discussion with me.
I'll quote the first instance of your supposed lack of concern:
*> and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of
*> their depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying
*> to go several rounds too many with this poster
*
* .. and invariably with nary a helping hand or iota of concern
* from ministers of religion such as yourself.
The phrase "this poster", by the way, has been explicitly
linked to me; hence my special interest. (Though I think
it could equally apply for a some others, including some
Christians. Richard Kerr, and Darren Middleton, for example;
to pick two very different examples.)
So the initial comment on a "lack of concern" appears to be
directed at the feeling that a minister should be expected to
close ranks with fellow Christians against the threat I present.
And third: I also find odd -- and at variance with my experience
for the most part -- the expectation that the concern of a
pastor should be specifically be with giving help to Christians,
rather than to people in general.
There is one constructive thing you do, Rowland... from time to
time you sound a word of caution that I may be a bit harsh... or
conversely you are encouraging when I try to be less aggressive.
Thanks for both!
Cheers -- Chris
"Rowland Croucher" wrote
> Correct. Each of them makes valuable, and varied contributions here.
I like
> Theo's (what's the noun for cryptic)
Crypt? That may be a grave error.
> I'm interested in robust discussion to examine my faith. An
unexamined faith
> is not worth having.
Bravo!
Theo
Cryptic enough?
"Chris Ho-Stuart" <hostuart@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3eff999f@no-spam
> In aus.religion.christian Rowland Croucher
<rcroucher@no-spam> wrote:
>
> [brutal snip of all context]
>
> > Two responses, or three.
> >
> > 1. This 'Christian minister' who is supposed to be
> > semi-retired, has about 20 counselling appointments this
> > week. What would be a good guideline/limit, do you think,
> > given all the people who need help, and given I need to get
> > some sleep occasionally?
>
> I hope noone is expecting you to be a counsellor
> to the newsgroup! I mainly see an expectation that a
> minister should have a generally supportive approach
> for Christians.
>
> But a couple of things strike me as very weird in this.
>
> First: you *do* have a generally supportive approach.
>
> Second: The original expression of "support" was specifically
> in the context of people having discussions with me; apparently
> suggesting you should be expected to chime in and give
> support to the people who are in discussion with me.
>
> I'll quote the first instance of your supposed lack of concern:
>
> *> and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of
> *> their depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying
> *> to go several rounds too many with this poster
> *
> * .. and invariably with nary a helping hand or iota of concern
> * from ministers of religion such as yourself.
>
> The phrase "this poster", by the way, has been explicitly
> linked to me; hence my special interest. (Though I think
> it could equally apply for a some others, including some
> Christians. Richard Kerr, and Darren Middleton, for example;
> to pick two very different examples.)
>
> So the initial comment on a "lack of concern" appears to be
> directed at the feeling that a minister should be expected to
> close ranks with fellow Christians against the threat I present.
>
> And third: I also find odd -- and at variance with my experience
> for the most part -- the expectation that the concern of a
> pastor should be specifically be with giving help to Christians,
> rather than to people in general.
>
> There is one constructive thing you do, Rowland... from time to
> time you sound a word of caution that I may be a bit harsh... or
> conversely you are encouraging when I try to be less aggressive.
> Thanks for both!
>
> Cheers -- Chris
Thanks Chris for your wisdom...
I agree with Chris 100% here.
Let me say if my fellow-Christians
* get over their head in areas where both they _and I_ lack the necessary
knowledge
* resort to abuse
* become 'picky' such as 'yes you did / no I didn't' -type childishness
they can rarely expect support from me. My life's too full assisting
_teachable_ people :-)!
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,200 + articles!)
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:iFULa.187$oN.4370@no-spam
> "Rowland Croucher" wrote
>
> > Correct. Each of them makes valuable, and varied contributions here.
> I like
> > Theo's (what's the noun for cryptic)
>
> Crypt? That may be a grave error.
>
> > I'm interested in robust discussion to examine my faith. An
> unexamined faith
> > is not worth having.
>
> Bravo!
>
> Theo
> Cryptic enough?
Yep. Thanks.
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,200 + articles!)
"Lawrence Meckan" wrote
> It wasn't my chosen topic. I have been trying to defend my character
and
> integrity against corruption thanks to claims people have said
against
> me.
>
> You think I want to discuss atheism ? Heck, no. I'd rather discuss
ways
> to develop one's faith out of nothing. I'd rather discuss approaches
to
> ministry. I'd rather discuss the best way to get the message of the
> Gospel to those who say they lack belief.
Don't stress Lawrence, it's just usenet. Some of us know your faith is
based on nothing.
> And there has been a Christian response, by me, and nobody listens,
> nobody gives a damn to change their understanding to accommodate
that
> truth, and so on..
>
> How many more times must I repeat stuff ?
Only until you say something that makes sense.
> Chris, I feel that your words have been constructive within debate.
> However, I feel some people on the other side of the fence haven't
been
> entirely honest and constructive in the way they have dealt with my
> testimony and my understanding.
Moi? Lawrence I mostly don't know what you're on about. Your logical
reasoning is way beyond my ability to grasp it.
> I was approached on the topic of atheism, thanks to Theo Bekkers'
> gumption to claim with no proof backing him:
>
> "I've already declared you to be a closet atheist, you spend all of
your
> time responding to atheists."
Oh dear, I've hurt your feelings.
> I entered a.r.c debate in regards to the whole existence of God
thing
> thanks to pedro, whom Theo also mislabelled an atheist (..after the
> fact, but who's watching for integrity?).
What exactly are you accusing me of doing? How are you questioning my
integrity?
> The thread was "A Near Empty
> Newsgroup". I was advocating that people of non-belief hanging
around a
> Christian NG were close to the Kingdom of God before people's
> understanding of my life came into the picture.
I don't keep records of what I say Lawrence so refresh me from the
"Lawrence" files. Is this where you said that atheists who hang around
"Christian" newsgroups are closet Christians and I responded (tongue
in cheek, as always) that I thought you must be a closet atheist as
you spend all your time talking to atheists? Somehow you got offended
(but I shouldn't have been).
> He still hasn't provided evidence for his words against my character
> (which now has transpired over the last 2 months, and has probably a
few
> more lucid claims along the way), so I doubt such evidence has ever
> existed.
Oh diddums. You want specific, word for word HARD evidence for what I
inferred from your postings over the last three years, AND you want me
to accept your 'testimony' as evidence for your god. Where's the HARD
evidence?
> That was the first shot in the furball of the last few months on
> atheism, and it wasn't fired by me, so I suggest you take a bit more
> care next time, OK ?
Yeah Chris, stop throwing furballs at Lawrence. Would somebody explain
to me the 'first shot in the furball', I'm out of touch with young
people like Lawrence. All that hip-hop stuff is beyond my capacity to
grasp.
Cheers
Theo
Rowland Croucher wrote:
> "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFD48F4.48751B3F@no-spam
> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
> >
> > This ng is more harmful to Christianity than it is
> > beneficial. (if you want my opinion).
>
> Yes, I appreciate your opinion, and disagree with it. I agree with Chris'
> opinion in the next post (well it's the next on my newsreader - I may have
> missed some from my blockees :-)
>
> > > Hint: there are currently three highly intelligent atheists who post
> > > regularly to this group
> >
> > Theo Bekkers
> > Chris Ho-Stuart
> > Sean McHugh
>
> Correct. Each of them makes valuable, and varied contributions here. I like
> Theo's (what's the noun for cryptic?)... Sean's thorough responses to
> posts - sometimes back several weeks (I don't know whether he reads right
> through those threads again to pick up something) and Chris' erudition and
> thoroughly researched responses (and, let me say, his increasingly irenic
> tone. Chris was, in my view, sometimes too tough with the perpetrators
> stupidity earlier. We've talked about that when we had a coffee together in
> Brisbane). I have - with Chris's permission - reproduced many of his posts
> on our website. Also Ken Smith's (and, previously, Nigel Mitchell's).
> > > and who are worth reading.
> >
> > Definitely. If you are more interested in atheism than Christianity.
>
> I'm interested in robust discussion to examine my faith. An unexamined faith
> is not worth having.
Now this is where we disagree entirely. I'm of the opinion that some faith is
better than no faith.. examined or not. Or, to put it another way.. ppl can and
do benefit from faith. This is contrary to your stated belief, and Chris's, of
the merits of 'robust' discussion. Of course ppl such as yourself, and he, with
vast experience and knowledge are interested in such, but the average person (or
Christian) can easily be overwhelmed by it. I personally think that we should
not proceed in these matters beyond what we perceive is to our benefit.
> >
> > ... and then there's Rowland! Rowlands main concern is to make Rowland
> look good
> > no matter what.
>
> I accept that rebuke, and have just referred it to the Lord. If it's true,
> I'd better repent. OTOH if, Pedro, you have offered that comment
> maliciously, you're in trouble at the Judgment (seriously).
Actually it was a comment made to me. It wasn't meant to be taken as seriously
as it has been, but I note your concern that it might be true, and appreciate
your honesty in admitting that you have taken note of it.
> >
> > Posting christian news and prayer requests to a christian newsgroup is
> quite a
> > respectable practice. There is no obligation to participate in discussion.
> The
> > only proviso I would suggest is that, you being a christian minister, I
> would
> > have thought that your participation as support for the christian position
> or
> > viewpoint, would be to some degree at least, obligatory.
>
> I agree, and I do, when I believe I have something to say, and I have the
> time. But I'm an amateur philosopher at best (so generally stay out of the
> debates about atheism for example) and what I don't know about science fills
> volumes (so I generally stay out of the creation/evolution debates). Pedro:
> start up a thread on something else, and invite me to respond...
>
My involvement here is becoming less and less, but I have in the past tried to
start discussions on matters I considered would be of interest, well they were
to me anyway, and provoke response, but usually to no avail. I recall for
example trying to get a discussion going about the end of the world
(Armageddon), but that went nowhere. Strangely it has usually been the case that
remarks I considered inconsequential have provoked the most response.
I am losing interest these days in matters that would (or should) be discussed
here tho. I guess it was just a phase I was going thru. But if I think of
anything I will certainly post it.
>
> Shalom!
>
> Rowland Croucher
>
> http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
> (Now 10,200 + articles!)
(I'll read and reply to others comments when I get some time. It's too late now,
and I'm tired)
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
Rowland Croucher wrote:
> "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFEE0E2.F25EA641@no-spam
>
> <>
>
> > I will give you an example if you like. I do not read the author Dolf
> Boek, but I
> > happened to see a post of his when he spoke about committing suicide,
> maybe it was
> > in the heading, anyway, I posted and tried to dissuade him from doing that
> by
> > pointing out his obvious talents as a web designer for one, and that
> someone with
> > ability of which that was indicative, should be able to make a positive
> > contribution to society if he set his mind to it. I was seeking to try to
> get him
> > to adopt a positive view about life. Anyway, he replied that I was the
> only one who
> > had tried to discourage him in any way. Others were even encouraging him
> to kill
> > himself! Shortly afterwards I received an email from a christian person,
> praising
> > me for my post. It occurred to me however that attempting to dissuade
> someone from
> > committing suicide, is something that a minister of religion should have
> done.
> > --
> > rgds,
> >
> > Pete.
>
> Two responses, or three.
>
> 1. This 'Christian minister' who is supposed to be semi-retired, has about
> 20 counselling appointments this week. What would be a good guideline/limit,
> do you think, given all the people who need help, and given I need to get
> some sleep occasionally?
>
> 2. Every Christian is a minister...
I don't get that.
>
> 3. I want to commend you on your sympathy with the person in question.
> That's good 'ministry'. Keep it up.
>
> --
>
> Shalom!
>
> Rowland Croucher
>
> http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
> (Now 10,200 + articles!)
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
> In aus.religion.christian Rowland Croucher <rcroucher@no-spam> wrote:
>
> [brutal snip of all context]
>
> > Two responses, or three.
> >
> > 1. This 'Christian minister' who is supposed to be
> > semi-retired, has about 20 counselling appointments this
> > week. What would be a good guideline/limit, do you think,
> > given all the people who need help, and given I need to get
> > some sleep occasionally?
>
> I hope noone is expecting you to be a counsellor
> to the newsgroup! I mainly see an expectation that a
> minister should have a generally supportive approach
> for Christians.
>
> But a couple of things strike me as very weird in this.
>
> First: you *do* have a generally supportive approach.
>
> Second: The original expression of "support" was specifically
> in the context of people having discussions with me; apparently
> suggesting you should be expected to chime in and give
> support to the people who are in discussion with me.
>
> I'll quote the first instance of your supposed lack of concern:
>
> *> and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of
> *> their depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying
> *> to go several rounds too many with this poster
> *
> * .. and invariably with nary a helping hand or iota of concern
> * from ministers of religion such as yourself.
I was not referring specifically to discussions with you, but Rowlans obviously was.
> The phrase "this poster", by the way, has been explicitly
> linked to me; hence my special interest. (Though I think
> it could equally apply for a some others, including some
> Christians. Richard Kerr, and Darren Middleton, for example;
> to pick two very different examples.)
>
> So the initial comment on a "lack of concern" appears to be
> directed at the feeling that a minister should be expected to
> close ranks with fellow Christians against the threat I present.
>
> And third: I also find odd -- and at variance with my experience
> for the most part -- the expectation that the concern of a
> pastor should be specifically be with giving help to Christians,
> rather than to people in general.
>
> There is one constructive thing you do, Rowland... from time to
> time you sound a word of caution that I may be a bit harsh... or
> conversely you are encouraging when I try to be less aggressive.
> Thanks for both!
>
> Cheers -- Chris
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> Chris Ho-Stuart <hostuart@no-spam> wrote:
> <snip to point>
> > Recently, I have engaged mainly a series of threads with
> > Lawrence. Lawrence's chosen topic has been atheism.
>
> It wasn't my chosen topic. I have been trying to defend my character and
> integrity against corruption thanks to claims people have said against
> me.
>
> You think I want to discuss atheism ? Heck, no. I'd rather discuss ways
> to develop one's faith out of nothing. I'd rather discuss approaches to
> ministry. I'd rather discuss the best way to get the message of the
> Gospel to those who say they lack belief.
It's obviously difficult to discuss those things when no one else is
responding, as I have found myself when attempting to discuss matters that I
have been interested in. Some christians that I have found accommodating in
discussion have been Nigel Mitchell, Graeme Hunt, and Fr. James, all since
departed unfortunately. (Damn those atheists! :) And it's rather difficult
to avoid dragging atheism into discussion when atheists are the only ones
participating, and especially since those here of that persuasion make such
an issue of it.
> > That is strictly speaking off-topic by the group charter, but in
> > practice it is very pertinent, because there are atheists like
> > myself who participate, and that makes nonbelief relevant
> > to the group. Working out a suitable Christian response to
> > unbelievers would, I think, be an excellent subject.
>
> And there has been a Christian response, by me, and nobody listens,
> nobody gives a damn to change their understanding to accommodate that
> truth, and so on..
You can't say that Lawrence. I have been influenced by some things that you
have written. I don't read everything, but now and then. Just because ppl
don't reply, does not mean that they don't take note of what is said.
> How many more times must I repeat stuff ?
>
> > Without wanting to resurrect all my discussions with Lawrence,
> > however, I do not think that Lawrence's approach has been
> > particularly constructive.
>
> Chris, I feel that your words have been constructive within debate.
> However, I feel some people on the other side of the fence haven't been
> entirely honest and constructive in the way they have dealt with my
> testimony and my understanding.
If you want my 2c.. there appears to be a closed mind 'on the other side of
the fence' with regards to alternate views or ways of approaching things.
They, unfortunately, think that theirs is always the correct approach, or
means of interpretation. The problem is of course that the theist 'factors
in' a deity, but the atheist does not.
> > The question is ... what should a minister like Rowland do?
> > Now note that Lawrence's posts are not presenting a standard
> > Christian position, nor were they about Christianity. I have
> > no desire to speak for Rowland on this topic, or drag him into
> > the subject.... but I do think that if we took a wide sample of
> > ministers of religion we'd get a substantial number who would
> > be more closely aligned with the positions I was advocating
> > on that thread than with the positions of Lawrence.
>
> I'd beg to differ on your rendering, Chris.
>
> I was approached on the topic of atheism, thanks to Theo Bekkers'
> gumption to claim with no proof backing him:
>
> "I've already declared you to be a closet atheist, you spend all of your
> time responding to atheists."
>
> I entered a.r.c debate in regards to the whole existence of God thing
> thanks to pedro, whom Theo also mislabelled an atheist (..after the
> fact, but who's watching for integrity?). The thread was "A Near Empty
> Newsgroup". I was advocating that people of non-belief hanging around a
> Christian NG were close to the Kingdom of God before people's
> understanding of my life came into the picture.
>
> He still hasn't provided evidence for his words against my character
> (which now has transpired over the last 2 months, and has probably a few
> more lucid claims along the way), so I doubt such evidence has ever
> existed.
>
> That was the first shot in the furball of the last few months on
> atheism, and it wasn't fired by me, so I suggest you take a bit more
> care next time, OK ?
If you want a word of friendly advice... I would suggest that you would do
better in discussions, if you approached them without the emphasis on
motivation that you impute to others, and that they might consider that do
not possess, and also without the 'lecturing' that you are also disposed
towards. (not meaning to be harsh, just helpful)
>
> lawrence
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
Rowland Croucher wrote:
> "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F006887.D8509338@no-spam
> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
> >
> > > "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3EFD48F4.48751B3F@no-spam
> > > > Rowland Croucher wrote:
> <>
> > > I'm interested in robust discussion to examine my faith. An unexamined
> faith
> > > is not worth having.
> >
> > Now this is where we disagree entirely. I'm of the opinion that some faith
> is
> > better than no faith.. examined or not. Or, to put it another way.. ppl
> can and
> > do benefit from faith. This is contrary to your stated belief, and
> Chris's, of
> > the merits of 'robust' discussion. Of course ppl such as yourself, and he,
> with
> > vast experience and knowledge are interested in such, but the average
> person (or
> > Christian) can easily be overwhelmed by it. I personally think that we
> should
> > not proceed in these matters beyond what we perceive is to our benefit.
>
> Immature/unexamined faith in a person of intelligence is dangerous... That
> person is likely to be bowled over too easily when s/he meets someone who
> blasts their incomplete faith-structure to smithereens...
But otoh we don't all have the interest or time to investigate these matters for
ourselves. That is why we look to professionals, such as yourself, who
supposedly have the knowledge to advise correctly in matters of faith.
I will post something now (shortly) that I had thought of posting that relates
to this, but then had thought 'why bother'; but I will now. You should be able
to recognize it.
> > > Pedro:
> > > start up a thread on something else, and invite me to respond...
> > >
> >
> > My involvement here is becoming less and less, but I have in the past
> tried to
> > start discussions on matters I considered would be of interest, well they
> were
> > to me anyway, and provoke response, but usually to no avail. I recall for
> > example trying to get a discussion going about the end of the world
> > (Armageddon), but that went nowhere. Strangely it has usually been the
> case that
> > remarks I considered inconsequential have provoked the most response.
>
> Wanna start up that thread again - and broaden it to include a macro-look at
> Christian eschatology? I'm preparing something on that subject right now and
> promise I'll respond...
Ok. But I will be out of my depth with such matters, so it will be over to you,
Chris, et al, to run with the ball. But what's stopping you from starting
threads?
> > I am losing interest these days in matters that would (or should) be
> discussed
> > here tho. I guess it was just a phase I was going thru. But if I think of
> > anything I will certainly post it.
>
> Fair enough. We all go through phases. It would be a pity to lose you from
> this forum, however...
Well, if I'm appreciated, I guess I'll stick around a bit. :)
> Shalom!
>
> Rowland Croucher
>
> http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
> (Now 10,200 + articles!)
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
>
>> In aus.religion.christian Rowland Croucher <rcroucher@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> [brutal snip of all context]
>>
>> > Two responses, or three.
>> >
>> > 1. This 'Christian minister' who is supposed to be
>> > semi-retired, has about 20 counselling appointments this
>> > week. What would be a good guideline/limit, do you think,
>> > given all the people who need help, and given I need to get
>> > some sleep occasionally?
>>
>> I hope noone is expecting you to be a counsellor
>> to the newsgroup! I mainly see an expectation that a
>> minister should have a generally supportive approach
>> for Christians.
>>
>> But a couple of things strike me as very weird in this.
>>
>> First: you *do* have a generally supportive approach.
>>
>> Second: The original expression of "support" was specifically
>> in the context of people having discussions with me; apparently
>> suggesting you should be expected to chime in and give
>> support to the people who are in discussion with me.
>>
>> I'll quote the first instance of your supposed lack of concern:
>>
>> *> and Christians/theists who don't realize they're out of
>> *> their depth come and go from this newsgroup after trying
>> *> to go several rounds too many with this poster
>> *
>> * .. and invariably with nary a helping hand or iota of concern
>> * from ministers of religion such as yourself.
>
> I was not referring specifically to discussions with you,
> but Rowlans obviously was.
Actually, you were the one who identified me by name, in the
immediate context of the above extract. Check out the thread
if you don't recall. Rowland did not name me, but gave details
which were sufficient to make the identification. He called
me "this poster" in the above extract. You gave the name,
and also provided the above comment.
It is a minor point, and I don't mind at all. But I think
perhaps you may have forgotten what was said. You most
definitely referred to me, explictly, by name, as the
person called "this poster" in the above.
Alas, I think we may be straying close to the "yes you did"
and "no I didn't" which Rowland perpspecaciously singles
out as indicating a certain level of unteachablility.
So with that, I retire... :-)
Actually, I find this whole thing faintly amusing. Many people,
frequently, indicate some concerns in one way or another that
as an atheist I'm doing a bad thing by joining in a religion
discussion group, on the presumption that I must be attacking
religion. Some atheists, from time to time, get exasperated
with me because I don't attack religion, and am quite accepting
and indeed supportive of Christians in many contexts. My own
perspective of my contributions here is that much of what I
actually argue for with any strength would find me solidly
aligned with many of the ordained clergy.
I hope Rowland does contribute on eschatology. There, perhaps,
is a better chance that you'll see he and I expressing plainly
divergent views.
I think eschatology is a great unsolved problem of the more
liberal branches of the church. Many Christians have come to
recognize that the placing of creation of the world within human
history (Adam being created during a creation week) cannot be
taken strictly literally. But what of the end of the world?
Many recognize that the apocalyptic style literature cannot
be taken literally either; the symbolism is blatant. Bowls of
wrath, silence in heaven, the Son of man with a sword for a
tongue, the dragon, the beast... this cannot possibly be
understood literally. On the other hand, the symbols were,
I believe, intended to refer to an end of history and a new
creation, placed in time.
I am somewhat agog to see if anyone picks this up and runs
with it.
Cheers -- Chris
"pedro" wrote
> But otoh we don't all have the interest or time to investigate these
matters for
> ourselves. That is why we look to professionals, such as yourself,
who
> supposedly have the knowledge to advise correctly in matters of
faith.
I don't understand. When your faith concerns belief in an almighty God
upon whose favour depends your future in eternity, how you could not
investigate it to your maximum extent.
Theo
"pedro" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
> > Moi? Lawrence I mostly don't know what you're on about. Your
logical
> > reasoning is way beyond my ability to grasp it.
> Then why engage him.
I find it difficult to leave some of his stuff unresponded.
> > I don't keep records of what I say Lawrence so refresh me from the
> > "Lawrence" files.
> Are they anything like the 'X Files'? :)
You will need a Lawrentian dictionary.
> > Yeah Chris, stop throwing furballs at Lawrence. Would somebody
explain
> > to me the 'first shot in the furball', I'm out of touch with young
> > people like Lawrence. All that hip-hop stuff is beyond my capacity
to
> > grasp.
> Since I'm giving Lawrence some advice, I will throw some comment
your way
> also. Seems to me that your attitude at times fails to allow for the
age
> difference. Lawrence should be give some latitude with regards his
> attitudes/remark/behaviouretc., in my opinion.
Lawrence is no chicken. He purportedly has had a Uni degree for some
years. He is not a child. You may have noticed that the words cryptic
and 'tongue in cheek' have been used by others as descriptors of my
style. With that in mind, read that paragraph again. It may give you
an insight of my view of Lawrence.
Cheers (like Sean, I have no sig and if this bit appears, it is
because I typed it just for you :-))
Theo
"pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F012E81.75B0C08E@no-spam
> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
>
> > In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
> > > Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
> > >> In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
> > >> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
<>
> It was someone who was a bit cheesed off that Rowland was supporting, or
> appeared to be supporting, you lot (atheists), in discussions where
> christians were copping a bashing, and they formed the opinion that
> Rowland was more concerned that you atheists thought well of him, than
> he was about supporting his fellow christians, and giving them some
> guidance (which they perceived, and as I said also, was his duty as a
> Pastor), and thus getting some curry thrown in his direction. The
> arguement that he is too much otherwise occupied does not wash in this
> instance, because he was in fact participating. (Beyond this I don't
> wish to comment any further about this matter).
I'm not interested much in supporting people simply because they're
Christians. I will support arguments which I feel are more cogent - and
they're not always the Christians' arguments :-)!
>
> >
> > Cheers -- Chris
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete.
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,200 + articles!)
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b3wMa.1272$oN.51022@no-spam
> "pedro" wrote
>
> > But otoh we don't all have the interest or time to investigate these
> matters for
> > ourselves. That is why we look to professionals, such as yourself,
> who
> > supposedly have the knowledge to advise correctly in matters of
> faith.
>
> I don't understand. When your faith concerns belief in an almighty God
> upon whose favour depends your future in eternity, how you could not
> investigate it to your maximum extent.
>
> Theo
(Agreeing with an atheist, and thereby about to receive an avalanche of
wrath from fellow-Xns):
One problem: what if the professionals disagree (e.g. Archbishops Carnley
and Jensen on the Bible and homosexuality)?
Another: what kind of family wants its offspring to remain children forever?
Didn't Paul write something to the effect of 'In malice be children, in
understanding be mature' (ie. don't just be sheep, following the most
convenient shepherd, to change the analogy)?
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,200 + articles!)
Rowland Croucher wrote:
> "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F012BD2.26B0C582@no-spam
> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
> >
> > > "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3EFEE0E2.F25EA641@no-spam
> <>
> > > 2. Every Christian is a minister...
> >
> > I don't get that.
>
> A correct understanding of the New Testament doctrine of 'the priesthood of
> all believers' is that all followers of Jesus Christ are priests/ministers.
> But not all ministers are pastors...
I still don't get it. Priests / Ministers must be ordained by legitimate
authority.
>
> Shalom!
>
> Rowland Croucher
>
> http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
> (Now 10,200 + articles!)
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
"pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F02FA8F.3364A138@no-spam
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
>
> > "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F012E81.75B0C08E@no-spam
> > > Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
> > >
> > > > In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
> > > > >> In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > >> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > <>
> > > It was someone who was a bit cheesed off that Rowland was supporting,
or
> > > appeared to be supporting, you lot (atheists), in discussions where
> > > christians were copping a bashing, and they formed the opinion that
> > > Rowland was more concerned that you atheists thought well of him, than
> > > he was about supporting his fellow christians, and giving them some
> > > guidance (which they perceived, and as I said also, was his duty as a
> > > Pastor), and thus getting some curry thrown in his direction. The
> > > arguement that he is too much otherwise occupied does not wash in this
> > > instance, because he was in fact participating. (Beyond this I don't
> > > wish to comment any further about this matter).
> >
> > I'm not interested much in supporting people simply because they're
> > Christians. I will support arguments which I feel are more cogent - and
> > they're not always the Christians' arguments :-)!
>
> Point taken. But please note the effect that your attitude has had in at
least
> one instance.
>
> Personally I feel that you should have regard to the position of authority
> that you hold in the Christian Church. So couldn't you do both?.. support
the
> christian in the first instance, and THEN support, or rather, explain why
you
> support, an opposing arguement or viewpoint. I don't wish to be too
critical,
> but after all, if you (or I, or anyone) were to rely on reason or logic
alone,
> we would very fast approach the no-god position.
>
> "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing"- Blaise Pascal
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete.
> -----
You're asking me to support stupidity?
Could the aggrieved person have emailed for help rather than sulk off?
PS That quote from Pascal is one of the best pithy summaries of valid
theology ever written...
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,250 articles!)
"pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F02FA6F.40C5A860@no-spam
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
>
> > "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F012BD2.26B0C582@no-spam
> > > Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > >
> > > > "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3EFEE0E2.F25EA641@no-spam
> > <>
> > > > 2. Every Christian is a minister...
> > >
> > > I don't get that.
> >
> > A correct understanding of the New Testament doctrine of 'the priesthood
of
> > all believers' is that all followers of Jesus Christ are
priests/ministers.
> > But not all ministers are pastors...
>
> I still don't get it. Priests / Ministers must be ordained by legitimate
> authority.
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete.
> -----
I fully endorse that: no contradictions there...
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,250 articles!)
"pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F02FA8F.3364A138@no-spam
I don't wish to be too critical, but after all, if you (or I, or anyone)
were to rely on reason or logic alone, we would very fast approach the
no-god position.
[snipped for context]
QOLON NOTES:
Reason and Revelation are the two cornerstones of Christian belief. That
many Christians cannot give a rational testimony should give you a clue as
to the truth of their claims. When the Hebrew Torah Scholar, Greek
Philosopher and Christian Apostle Paul says, "..chiefly-PROTON {firstly in
time, place, order, importance}, because-HOTI that unto them were
committed-PISTEUO {to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or
thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one's
spiritual well being to Christ):-believer, commit (to trust), put in trust
with} the oracles-LOGION {utterance of God, oracles} of God-THEOS." [Romans
3:2]
He is in fact saying that consistent with the Oracles of God as 10
Commandments given, these events occurred in their time:
3W1D - There was Adam {earthy, red} as NATURE CONTAINS NATURE
Remember-ZAKAR {ie. to be male} the sabbath-SHABBATH {ie. cause to make
fail} day-YOM {ie to be hot, trouble}, to keep-QADASH {ie.
affecting/proclaiming state of holiness} it holy-QADASH.
26J5W - There was Noah {rest, repose, consolation} as NATURE REJOICES IN ITS
NATURE
Honour-KABAD {ie. in a bad sense (burdensome, severe, dull) or in a good
sense (numerous, rich, honorable); causatively to make weighty} thy
father-'AB {ie. Chief Principle} and thy mother-'EM {ie. Parting}: that thy
days-YOM {ie to be hot, trouble} may be long-'ARAK {ie. To lengthen} upon
the land-'ADAMAH {ie. earth}
40J4W - There was Abraham {Father of a great multitude} AS NATURE SURMOUNTS
NATURE
Thou shalt not kill-RATSACH {ie. to dash into pieces}.
50J - There was Moses {Taken out, drawn forth} as NATURE AMENDED IN ITS
NATURE
Thou shalt not commit-NA'APH adultery-NA'APH {ie. to apostatise, the
breaking of wedlock where Egypt means that which troubles or oppresses;
anguish}
72J2W1D {457BCE} - There was Zerubbabel {a stranger at Babylon; dispersion
of confusion; Offspring of Babylon} as ACT OF NATURE
Thou shalt not steal-GANAB {ie. thieve (literally or figuratively); by
implication to deceive:-carry away, secretly bring, steal (away),
get by stealth -- Chaldean meaning demons or robbers }
72J71W5W {30CE} - There was Jesus {a saviour, a deliverer} of Nazareth
{separated; crowned; sanctified} as FORM OF NATURE
Thou shalt not bear-'ANAH {to eye or (generally) to heed, that is, pay
attention; by implication to respond; by extension to begin to speak;
specifically to sing, shout, testify, announce:-give account, afflict,
(cause to, give) answer, bring low, cry, hear, lift up, say, scholar,
(give a) shout, sing (together by course), speak, testify, utter, (bear)
witness.} false-SHEQER {an untruth; by implication a sham (often
adverbially):-without a cause, deceit (-ful), false (-hood, -ly), feignedly,
liar, lie, lying, vain (thing), wrongfully} witness-'ED {a witness;
abstractly testimony; specifically a recorder, that is, prince}H5707 against
thy neighbour-REA' {associate (more or less close):-brother, companion,
fellow, friend, husband, lover, neighbour}.
122J3W1D {6,000 years later) - There will be sub-ordination of gender by the
Priestly ruling class and the resurrection of the dead (ie. restoring truth}
as ENGENDERING NATURE
Thou shalt not covet-CHAMAD {delight in:-beauty, greatly beloved, covet,
delectable thing, ( X great) delight, desire, goodly, lust, (be) pleasant
(thing), precious (thing)} thy neighbour's-REA' {associate (more or less
close):-brother, companion, fellow, friend, husband, lover, neighbour}
house-BAYITH {a house and all its contains, a building up, palace, place,
prison}, thou shalt not covet-CHAMAD thy neighbour's-REA' wife-'ISHAHAH {the
feminine, nor his manservant-'EBED {male slavitude or servant}, nor his
maidservant-'AMAH {female slavitude or servant}, nor his ox-SHOR {ie. to
turn, that is, travel about (as a harlot or a merchant)}, nor his ass-CHAMOR
{ie. to foul, to defile, trouble, to boil up; hence to ferment (with scum);
to glow (with redness), to smear with pitch}, nor any-KOL {ie. of the
totality} thing that is thy neighbour's-REA' {associate (more or less
close):-brother, companion, fellow, friend, husband, lover, neighbour}.
[Exodus 20:10-17]
For example, the Sarmin or Angelic Prince Sandolfon (Gk. for co-brother) as
the Angelic Ruler of the Fifth Heaven {Mathey or Machon} was considered the
Angel of Glory and Prayer, the prophet Elijah and the twin brother of
Metatron, Master-hazzan of heavenly song and one of the tallest Hierarchs in
the celestial realm. This appellation of 'the tall Angel' is also applied to
the Angel Israfel {The burning one; blows the trumpet on the Day of
Judgment}, Ophan and Typhon. In Mathers, The Greater Key of Solomon, is
designated as the left-hand feminine cherub of the ark. In the Liturgy of
the Feast of Tabernacles, this Angel is said to gather the prayers of the
faithful, makes a garland of them and then 'Adjures them to ascend as an orb
to the supreme King of Kings'. While in the Zohar this Angel is regarded as
the chief of the 7th Heaven, and in Islamic Lore, as dwelling in the 4th--is
nevertheless depicted as carrying on a ceaseless combat with the Angel
Sammael {Prince of Rome & All Accusers; Associate of Satan & Dubbi'el {Bear
God} or Prince of Persia; Poison Angel or Angel of Death; Belial; otherwise
known as Satan}. [Ref: The Hypostasis of the Archons II 86, 20-97,23, The
Nag Hammadi Library, © 1988 E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands]
- Qolon
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/
"Rowland Croucher" wrote
> I fully endorse that: no contradictions there...
I like your teaching style Rowland, but it may confuse some people.
:-)
Theo
Rowland Croucher wrote:
> "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F02FA8F.3364A138@no-spam
> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
> >
> > > "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3F012E81.75B0C08E@no-spam
> > > > Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > > Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
> > > > > >> In aus.religion.christian pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > >> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > > <>
> > > > It was someone who was a bit cheesed off that Rowland was supporting,
> or
> > > > appeared to be supporting, you lot (atheists), in discussions where
> > > > christians were copping a bashing, and they formed the opinion that
> > > > Rowland was more concerned that you atheists thought well of him, than
> > > > he was about supporting his fellow christians, and giving them some
> > > > guidance (which they perceived, and as I said also, was his duty as a
> > > > Pastor), and thus getting some curry thrown in his direction. The
> > > > arguement that he is too much otherwise occupied does not wash in this
> > > > instance, because he was in fact participating. (Beyond this I don't
> > > > wish to comment any further about this matter).
> > >
> > > I'm not interested much in supporting people simply because they're
> > > Christians. I will support arguments which I feel are more cogent - and
> > > they're not always the Christians' arguments :-)!
> >
> > Point taken. But please note the effect that your attitude has had in at
> least
> > one instance.
> >
> > Personally I feel that you should have regard to the position of authority
> > that you hold in the Christian Church. So couldn't you do both?.. support
> the
> > christian in the first instance, and THEN support, or rather, explain why
> you
> > support, an opposing arguement or viewpoint. I don't wish to be too
> critical,
> > but after all, if you (or I, or anyone) were to rely on reason or logic
> alone,
> > we would very fast approach the no-god position.
> >
> > "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing"- Blaise Pascal
> > --
> > rgds,
> >
> > Pete.
> > -----
>
> You're asking me to support stupidity?
>
> Could the aggrieved person have emailed for help rather than sulk off?
>
> PS That quote from Pascal is one of the best pithy summaries of valid
> theology ever written...
>
> --
>
> Shalom!
>
> Rowland Croucher
>
> http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
> (Now 10,250 articles!)
Seems to me a simple solution to the problem will be for ppl to not hold you in
such high regard. They won't care then too much what you say or think.
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
"pedro" wrote
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > You're asking me to support stupidity?
> >
> > Could the aggrieved person have emailed for help rather than sulk
off?
> >
> > PS That quote from Pascal is one of the best pithy summaries of
valid
> > theology ever written...
> Seems to me a simple solution to the problem will be for ppl to not
hold you in
> such high regard. They won't care then too much what you say or
think.
Told you so Rowland.
Theo, <amused>
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam>,
As an athiest-{ie. Godless one}, the question as to whether there is a God
or not, is your prime motivation as participation within these religious
discussion newsgroups. And as such, disqualifies you and your vermin
athiest-{ie. Godless} friends Chris Ho-Stuart and Sean McHugh from further
perpetuating your psychopathic and sychophantic fanstasies upon others here.
Such a consideration differs from the question as to which God.
I'd suggest that the God-YAHWEH believers on these religious discusion
newsgroups have been gracious enough in entertaining you and now its time
for you to go. And given the likehood that you have me kill-filed, I'm sure
someone will be gracious seconding my remarks, so that you may see them.
Already I look forward to the vitality of the group continuing to grow in
your absence.
Depart!
- Qolon
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ZgVMa.1851$oN.79173@no-spam
"pedro" wrote
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > You're asking me to support stupidity?
> >
> > Could the aggrieved person have emailed for help rather than sulk
off?
> >
> > PS That quote from Pascal is one of the best pithy summaries of
valid
> > theology ever written...
> Seems to me a simple solution to the problem will be for ppl to not
hold you in
> such high regard. They won't care then too much what you say or
think.
Told you so Rowland.
Theo, <amused>
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:GbRMa.1702$oN.73219@no-spam
> "Rowland Croucher" wrote
>
> > I fully endorse that: no contradictions there...
>
> I like your teaching style Rowland, but it may confuse some people.
> :-)
>
> Theo
Good pedagogy is encouraging people _how_ to think rather than _what_ to
think eh?
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,250 articles!)
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ZgVMa.1851$oN.79173@no-spam
> "pedro" wrote
> > Rowland Croucher wrote:
>
> > > You're asking me to support stupidity?
> > >
> > > Could the aggrieved person have emailed for help rather than sulk
> off?
> > >
> > > PS That quote from Pascal is one of the best pithy summaries of
> valid
> > > theology ever written...
>
> > Seems to me a simple solution to the problem will be for ppl to not
> hold you in
> > such high regard. They won't care then too much what you say or
> think.
>
> Told you so Rowland.
>
> Theo, <amused>
I don't remember you telling me so Theo (I love that name :-)
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,250 articles!)
"Rowland Croucher" <rcroucher@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3f042c01$0$31275$afc38c87@no-spam
Good pedagogy is encouraging people _how_ to think rather than _what_ to
think eh?
QOLON NOTES:
But Rowland,
As was noted in the Armageddon discussion thread where it was noted {
How Rowland Croucher, as a supposed Christian Church pastor
{heterodidaskaleo}, continues
to have no real answers to the enigma which he claims is the character of
the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ!
}
A good teacher {Apostle-didaskalos} doesn't eat the flock.
And within the Scriptures, this appears to be the central point of
contention {pseudodidaskalos v's nomosdidaskalos} against the false
cosmological teachers of the Law {nomos} concerning the "first-arche
principles-stoicheion of the Oracles-logion of God-theos" [Hebrews 5:12]
- dolf
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kabbalah/grapple.html#CUBE
For those who don't have the scriptures handy, Hebrews 5:12 says:
"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." [©
1982 Nelson Thomas, New King James Version, Hebrews 5:12]
- Qolon
"Qolon" <telos@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nA0Na.12$R15.304@no-spam
"Rowland Croucher" <rcroucher@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3f042c01$0$31275$afc38c87@no-spam
Good pedagogy is encouraging people _how_ to think rather than _what_ to
think eh?
QOLON NOTES:
But Rowland,
As was noted in the Armageddon discussion thread {
Note how Rowland Croucher, as a supposed Christian Church pastor
{heterodidaskaleo}, continues to have no real answers to the enigma which he
claims is the character of the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ!
}
A good teacher {Apostle-didaskalos} doesn't eat the flock--Are we not
"taught-theodidaktos of God-theodidaktos to love-agapao one-allelon
another-allelon." [1Thessalonians 4:9]
And within the Scriptures, this appears to be the central point of
contention {pseudodidaskalos v's nomosdidaskalos} against the false
cosmological teachers of the Law {nomos} concerning the "first-arche
principles-stoicheion of the Oracles-logion of God-theos" [Hebrews 5:12]
- dolf
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kabbalah/grapple.html#CUBE
For those who don't have the scriptures handy, Hebrews 5:12 says:
"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." [©
1982 Nelson Thomas, New King James Version, Hebrews 5:12]
- Qolon
"Qolon" <telos@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nA0Na.12$R15.304@no-spam
"Rowland Croucher" <rcroucher@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3f042c01$0$31275$afc38c87@no-spam
Good pedagogy is encouraging people _how_ to think rather than _what_ to
think eh?
QOLON NOTES:
But Rowland,
As was noted in the Armageddon discussion thread {
Note how Rowland Croucher, as a supposed Christian Church pastor
{heterodidaskaleo}, continues to have no real answers to the enigma which he
claims is the character of the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ!
}
A good teacher {Apostle-didaskalos} doesn't eat the flock--Are we not
"taught-theodidaktos of God-theodidaktos to love-agapao one-allelon
another-allelon." [1Thessalonians 4:9]
And within the Scriptures, this appears to be the central point of
contention {pseudodidaskalos v's nomosdidaskalos} against the false
cosmological teachers of the Law {nomos} concerning the "first-arche
principles-stoicheion of the Oracles-logion of God-theos" [Hebrews 5:12]
- dolf
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kabbalah/grapple.html#CUBE
My apologies, I've actually conveyed [Hebrew 4:12]:-
"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." [©
1982 Nelson Thomas, New King James Version, Hebrews 4:12]
This quote {"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing"-
Blaise Pascal}, which was provided by Pedro and to which Rowland claims is
"one of best pithy summaries of valid theology ever written...",
demonstrates further the lack concerning Rowland's rational claim to
Christian belief.
- Qolon
"Qolon" <telos@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nA0Na.12$R15.304@no-spam
"Rowland Croucher" <rcroucher@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3f042c01$0$31275$afc38c87@no-spam
Good pedagogy is encouraging people _how_ to think rather than _what_ to
think eh?
QOLON NOTES:
But Rowland,
As was noted in the Armageddon discussion thread {
Note how Rowland Croucher, as a supposed Christian Church pastor
{heterodidaskaleo}, continues to have no real answers to the enigma which he
claims is the character of the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ!
}
A good teacher {Apostle-didaskalos} doesn't eat the flock--Are we not
"taught-theodidaktos of God-theodidaktos to love-agapao one-allelon
another-allelon." [1Thessalonians 4:9]
And within the Scriptures, this appears to be the central point of
contention {pseudodidaskalos v's nomosdidaskalos} against the false
cosmological teachers of the Law {nomos} concerning the "first-arche
principles-stoicheion of the Oracles-logion of God-theos" [Hebrews 5:12]
- Qolon
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kabbalah/grapple.html#CUBE
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam>,
As an athiest-{ie. Godless one}, the question as to whether there is a God
or not, is your prime motivation as participation within these religious
discussion newsgroups. And as such, disqualifies you and your vermin
athiest-{ie. Godless} friends Chris Ho-Stuart and Sean McHugh from further
perpetuating your psychopathic and sychophantic fantasies upon others here.
Such a consideration differs from the question as to which God.
I'd suggest that the God-YAHWEH believers on these religious discussion
newsgroups have been gracious enough in entertaining you and now its time
for you to go. And given the likehood that you have me kill-filed, I'm sure
someone will be gracious seconding my remarks, so that you may see them.
Already I look forward to the vitality of the group continuing to grow in
your absence.
Depart!
- Qolon
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ZgVMa.1851$oN.79173@no-spam
"pedro" wrote
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > You're asking me to support stupidity?
> >
> > Could the aggrieved person have emailed for help rather than sulk
off?
> >
> > PS That quote from Pascal is one of the best pithy summaries of
valid
> > theology ever written...
> Seems to me a simple solution to the problem will be for ppl to not
hold you in
> such high regard. They won't care then too much what you say or
think.
Told you so Rowland.
Theo, <amused>
In aus.religion.christian Qolon <telos@no-spam> wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam>,
>
> As an athiest-{ie. Godless one}, the question as to whether there is a God
> or not, is your prime motivation as participation within these religious
> discussion newsgroups. And as such, disqualifies you and your vermin
> athiest-{ie. Godless} friends Chris Ho-Stuart and Sean McHugh from further
> perpetuating your psychopathic and sychophantic fanstasies upon others here.
>
> Such a consideration differs from the question as to which God.
>
> I'd suggest that the God-YAHWEH believers on these religious discusion
> newsgroups have been gracious enough in entertaining you and now its time
> for you to go. And given the likehood that you have me kill-filed, I'm sure
> someone will be gracious seconding my remarks, so that you may see them.
>
> Already I look forward to the vitality of the group continuing to grow in
> your absence.
>
> Depart!
This is a thread in which I and others have been participating
for some time. This is a newsgroup in which all are welcome,
regardless of religious belief.
The charter is explicitly open, and accepting. Many of the
posters are as well.
This thread in particular is one where the engagement has been
robust, but of a fairly high standard of mutual respect. There
has been some disagreement, but that is why we have open
discussion groups.
It is not appropriate for anyone else to start trying to
order other people off an open newsgroup based simply on
their beliefs.
This is an OPEN DISCUSSION FORUM.
This discussion forum is EXPLICTLY intended for everyone,
regardless of background.
If you do not want open discussion, then go to a forum which
is intended to be limited to believers.
There is a long history of constructive co-operation in
this group. Sure, we get aggressive blow ins, especially
when a thread is crossposted beyond all reason. But we have
had exceptionally positive contributions as well. Do people
remember Andrew Parle? Consistently a gentleman. Or the
incomparable Danny Yee? Danny took responsibility for a time
maintaining a web site for the group, and took up a great idea
of collecting brief biographies of participants, so we could
all get to know the people behind the postings a bit better.
Both unbelievers; but both always contructive. And of course
there have been many constructve regulars over the years who
are believers.
This is a place where we CAN discuss together.
It is also not helpful to merely vilify fellow contributors.
It is unChristian, and intolerant, and destructive of what
this group can be, to call people "vermin" based on their
beliefs.
Chris
Dear readers,
Atheism:
1) the doctrine that there is no God.
2) disbelief in the existence of a God (or gods).
3) godlessness [Gk atheos without a god]
I think I heard Chris Ho Stuart bleating somewhere that as an atheist he
meets the criteria for participation in these religious groups. I don't
that and believe that it is more appropriate for him to go to alt.atheism
and ask his questions there.
And if there is any here who similarly disbelieve, then I'm sure they'll
have a friutful discussion there.
- Qolon
"Qolon" <telos@no-spam> wrote in message
news:AKVMa.743$JI4.10399@no-spam
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam>,
As an athiest-{ie. Godless one}, the question as to whether there is a God
or not, is your prime motivation as participation within these religious
discussion newsgroups. And as such, disqualifies you and your vermin
athiest-{ie. Godless} friends Chris Ho-Stuart and Sean McHugh from further
perpetuating your psychopathic and sychophantic fanstasies upon others here.
Such a consideration differs from the question as to which God.
I'd suggest that the God-YAHWEH believers on these religious discusion
newsgroups have been gracious enough in entertaining you and now its time
for you to go. And given the likehood that you have me kill-filed, I'm sure
someone will be gracious seconding my remarks, so that you may see them.
Already I look forward to the vitality of the group continuing to grow in
your absence.
Depart!
- Qolon
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ZgVMa.1851$oN.79173@no-spam
"pedro" wrote
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > You're asking me to support stupidity?
> >
> > Could the aggrieved person have emailed for help rather than sulk
off?
> >
> > PS That quote from Pascal is one of the best pithy summaries of
valid
> > theology ever written...
> Seems to me a simple solution to the problem will be for ppl to not
hold you in
> such high regard. They won't care then too much what you say or
think.
Told you so Rowland.
Theo, <amused>
Dear readers,
Atheism:
1) the doctrine that there is no God.
2) disbelief in the existence of a God (or gods).
3) godlessness [Gk atheos without a god]
Vermin:
1) noxious, troublesome, or objectionable animals collectively, esp.
troublesome or disgusting insects or other minute animals, more particularly
creeping ones parasitic on living animals, more particularly creeping ones
parasitic on living animals or plants.
2) a single animal of this kind
3) obnoxious persons collectively
4) a single person of this kind [ME vermyne, from OF vermin, from verm worm,
from L vermis] [Courtesy Macquarie Dictionary]
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath
showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because
that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory
of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to
birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave
them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour
their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is
blessed for ever. Amen." [Romans 1:19-25]
I think I heard Chris Ho Stuart bleating somewhere that as an atheist he
meets the criteria for participation in these religious groups. I doubt
that and believe that it is more appropriate for him to go to alt.atheism
and ask his questions there.
And if there is any here who similarly disbelieve, then I'm sure they'll
have a friutful discussion there.
- Qolon
"Qolon" <telos@no-spam> wrote in message
news:AKVMa.743$JI4.10399@no-spam
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam>,
As an athiest-{ie. Godless one}, the question as to whether there is a God
or not, is your prime motivation as participation within these religious
discussion newsgroups. And as such, disqualifies you and your vermin
athiest-{ie. Godless} friends Chris Ho-Stuart and Sean McHugh from further
perpetuating your psychopathic and sychophantic fanstasies upon others here.
Such a consideration differs from the question as to which God.
I'd suggest that the God-YAHWEH believers on these religious discusion
newsgroups have been gracious enough in entertaining you and now its time
for you to go. And given the likehood that you have me kill-filed, I'm sure
someone will be gracious seconding my remarks, so that you may see them.
Already I look forward to the vitality of the group continuing to grow in
your absence.
Depart!
- Qolon
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/
"Theo Bekkers" <theo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ZgVMa.1851$oN.79173@no-spam
"pedro" wrote
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > You're asking me to support stupidity?
> >
> > Could the aggrieved person have emailed for help rather than sulk
off?
> >
> > PS That quote from Pascal is one of the best pithy summaries of
valid
> > theology ever written...
> Seems to me a simple solution to the problem will be for ppl to not
hold you in
> such high regard. They won't care then too much what you say or
think.
Told you so Rowland.
Theo, <amused>
"Chris Ho-Stuart" wrote
> Qolon wrote:
> > "Theo Bekkers"
> > As an athiest-{ie. Godless one}, the question as to whether there
is a God
> > or not, is your prime motivation as participation within these
religious
> > discussion newsgroups. And as such, disqualifies you and your
vermin
> > athiest-{ie. Godless} friends Chris Ho-Stuart and Sean McHugh from
further
> > perpetuating your psychopathic and sychophantic fanstasies upon
others here.
ROTFL.
> > Such a consideration differs from the question as to which God.
> >
> > I'd suggest that the God-YAHWEH believers on these religious
discusion
> > newsgroups have been gracious enough in entertaining you and now
its time
> > for you to go. And given the likehood that you have me
kill-filed, I'm sure
> > someone will be gracious seconding my remarks, so that you may see
them.
Thank you Chris. I do have "Qolon" kill-filed, but I do appreciate
seeing this. I can just see all the regular Christians cringing.
> If you do not want open discussion, then go to a forum which
> is intended to be limited to believers.
You're too polite Chris, I would have suggested a different way of
'going'.
Theo
Dear readers,
It is a contradiction in terms for an atheist (ie a Godless) person to
participate constructively in religious discourse. The motive can only be
one of antagonism (no matter how politely stated) and deconstruction of the
proposition that their exists a God.
Atheism:
1) the doctrine that there is no God.
2) disbelief in the existence of a God (or gods).
3) godlessness [Gk atheos without a god]
Vermin:
1) noxious, troublesome, or objectionable animals collectively, esp.
troublesome or disgusting insects or other minute animals, more particularly
creeping ones parasitic on living animals or plants.
2) a single animal of this kind
3) obnoxious persons collectively
4) a single person of this kind [ME vermyne, from OF vermin, from verm worm,
from L vermis] [Courtesy Macquarie Dictionary]
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath
showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because
that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory
of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to
birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave
them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,