Theology IV

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I can see how using the term that way makes sense, in view of the word root. I'm just saying I don't think it's commonly used that way. At least not where I come from or in any of the articles I've ever read .

The popes and Sacred Scripture are perfectly entitled to use the broader meaning, of course. As I said, that makes sense in view of the word root.

It's fairly common in the Catholic tradition of spirituality. Just google the phrase; you come up with 630,000 results.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's fairly common in the Catholic tradition of spirituality. Just google the phrase; you come up with 630,000 results.

Okay . My point was just that it doesn't show up on normal media channels or conversation with non-Catholics, much. Inside the Catholic tradition of spirituality, sure, but in mainstream use outside of that, it doesn't show up. I doubt very highly that that's what the Zeitoun website meant.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I presume people with wooden legs often don't have the faith to be healed. More stupendous miracles tend to require more faith than smaller miracles. Not that the miracles of Lourdes are in any way "small" . It's just that regrowing a limb is much bigger.

Bigger to Whom? Certainly not the Author of Miracles, who is after all omnipotent.

And isn't that a bit of a slap in the face to the one-eyed, one-armed, and one-legged (and a double slap to double amputees)? Not one of them has had sufficient faith? Also,does it really take more faith to have a withered arm healed than a withered hand? If you have two withered legs, can you have enough faith to heal one but not the other?

What about those-the vast majority, in fact-who make the pilgrimages but aren't healed? Is that due to their lack of faith? Seems like kind of a friend-of-Job attitude.

My positon (and I presume Zola's) is that I want to see a miracle:

Dictionary.com:
"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."

American Heritage Dictionary:
"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:"

Websters Unabridged:
"Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed."

But restoring functions to crippled limbs, or eyesight to damaged eyes, or spontaneous recovery from disease, does not fulfil these criteria, because all these things have been known to happen naturally, sometimes from such a prosaic cause as a bump on the head (restored eyesight).

Now you can argue that, yes, these things do happen naturally, but in this specific case it was a miracle, but it's not going to be a convincing argument.

OTOH, people, unlike starfish, do not regenerate severed limbs.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Bigger to Whom? Certainly not the Author of Miracles, who is after all omnipotent.

And isn't that a bit of a slap in the face to the one-eyed, one-armed, and one-legged (and a double slap to double amputees)? Not one of them has had sufficient faith? Also,does it really take more faith to have a withered arm healed than a withered hand? If you have two withered legs, can you have enough faith to heal one but not the other?

What about those-the vast majority, in fact-who make the pilgrimages but aren't healed? Is that due to their lack of faith? Seems like kind of a friend-of-Job attitude.

My positon (and I presume Zola's) is that I want to see a miracle:

Dictionary.com:
"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."

American Heritage Dictionary:
"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:"

Websters Unabridged:
"Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed."

But restoring functions to crippled limbs, or eyesight to damaged eyes, or spontaneous recovery from disease, does not fulfil these criteria, because all these things have been known to happen naturally, sometimes from such a prosaic cause as a bump on the head (restored eyesight).

Now you can argue that, yes, these things do happen naturally, but in this specific case it was a miracle, but it's not going to be a convincing argument.

OTOH, people, unlike starfish, do not regenerate severed limbs.

Yes, actually it sounds more like a Hulk Hogan religion. He has said, a couple of times, that the young man who was injured by his son's drunk driving needed stronger faith.

I'd have said 'less faith in the driving prowess of his buddy, the young Hogan', personally, but where you stand depends on where you sit, I guess.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Bigger to Whom? Certainly not the Author of Miracles, who is after all omnipotent.

No, bigger to the human beings.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And isn't that a bit of a slap in the face to the one-eyed, one-armed, and one-legged (and a double slap to double amputees)? Not one of them has had sufficient faith?

You're ignoring the part of my post in which I showed that these kinds of miracles do happen. They're just a lot more rare.

But not having enough faith shouldn't be seen as a slap in the face. I think that that's a very sad misimpression many people have. Some people do feel that their lack of a miracle is the result of their lack of faith and then get extremely depressed. This isn't the right perspective, though.

The development of faith is occurring for each of us throughout our lives. All of us start with less and end up with more, provided we're following God in our lives. Some people start out with more and so get more over the course of their lives. Others start with less and might end up with less than someone else started with. But they're all moving toward God on their own journey. Some bigger miracles require a lot of faith and there's no shame in not having enough yet. Imagine an 8-year old kid trying to lift 100 pound weights. He should wait till he grows a bit older and develops more muscle.
There's no shame in the failure, though. The fact that a spiritual newcomer, or even a mature Christian believer, doesn't always have the faith for something big that he or she is asking, is no shame. The point is that the person is seeking God and gaining more faith as he leads him or her bit by bit on life's journey. If he has enough faith for the fabulous miracles, that's great. But it's not a test for how faithful they are to God. Someone can be perfectly faithful and not have the faith for these miracles.

The Epistles actually talk about this, some. Paul describes pursuing the Lord as running a race to a finish line. There's a track along the way- we don't start at the finish line. And Paul talks in other passages about supernatural healing and miracles being spiritual gifts from God, and he said different people are developed in different spiritual gifts. Not everyone has, or is expected to have, the same gifts. Paul said that the Body of Christ is like a human body, and the fact that a finger has a different function from a toe doesn't make either more valuable than the other. An eye can't boast to the stomach, "you can't see, so who needs you?" In the same way, someone with gifts of healing can't say to a prophet who sees the future but lacks healing, "you can't heal, so who needs you?" And someone who is generous and gives their belongings to the poor, or who is kind and loving and is an expression of God's love to everyone around him or her in less supernatural ways, is no less valuable or worthy for lacking someone else's gift.

It's a very, very wrong perspective that says lacking the faith for something makes you in any way unfaithful to Christ.

I know that I don't have the same kind of faith for healing that my younger sister has. My Mom had had a condition of foot pain for years, causing her to be unable to walk any long distances and sometimes nearly crippling her, and my sister prayed over her foot and she was immediately and completely healed. No recurrence of the pain has followed. My sister has a real gift for healing and a great compassion for people who are hurting that is beyond mine. Does that make me less a follower of Christ? No. I am completely aware that God uses me in different and equally valuable ways.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Also,does it really take more faith to have a withered arm healed than a withered hand?

The more you're asking from God, the more faith you'd have to have that he'll give it. If you're asking for only a little, it doesn't take that much faith. If you're asking for a lot, it does. But if you're accustomed to seeing God give a lot and so grow to expect miracles, it will probably take less faith for you to ask for things that it might take a great deal of faith for people to ask for, if they've never seen it happen. It's pretty simple, really, and logical.

Think about Luke Skywalker talking with Yoda on Dagobah. "Master, moving stones around is one thing but this is totally different!" "No! No different! Only different in your mind!" Then, later: "I don't . . . I don't believe it." "That . . . is why you fail."

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

If you have two withered legs, can you have enough faith to heal one but not the other?

*Shrugs.* I don't know. I guess it's possible.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

What about those-the vast majority, in fact-who make the pilgrimages but aren't healed? Is that due to their lack of faith? Seems like kind of a friend-of-Job attitude.

There's more than one possible reason, of course.

One is lack of faith, and there's NO fault in that. Nothing wrong with that, provided you're still seeking God and getting more faith.

Another possible reason is that God, for motives all of his own, has said no. And he can have all kinds of good reasons that humans never thought of, seeing as he is omniscient.

One more reason, and in this one there is blame and fault involved, is that the person seeking God has committed some grave sin, and that act of separating oneself from God has created a leak in the faucet of God's power into your life.


By the way, I'd like it if I saw some support for your claim that the vast majority who go on pilgrimages don't experience healings or encounters with God of other kinds.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

My positon (and I presume Zola's) is that I want to see a miracle:

Dictionary.com:
"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."

American Heritage Dictionary:
"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:"

Websters Unabridged:
"Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed."

But restoring functions to crippled limbs, or eyesight to damaged eyes, or spontaneous recovery from disease, does not fulfil these criteria, because all these things have been known to happen naturally, sometimes from such a prosaic cause as a bump on the head (restored eyesight).

Now you can argue that, yes, these things do happen naturally, but in this specific case it was a miracle, but it's not going to be a convincing argument.

It can happen naturally, but it's very unlikely to do so. The odds of it happening naturally are certainly slim. The odds of it happening the instant somebody prays for healing have got to be much, much slimmer. Besides, plenty of these healings defy science to explain. They are inexplicable.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

OTOH, people, unlike starfish, do not regenerate severed limbs.

Well, as I pointed out, it has happened in answer to prayer. It's just not anywhere near so common, because it requires more faith. I know that if I was crippled by some disease, I'd have higher expectations of God answering my prayer for healing from that than I would if I'd lost one or both legs. Even though I know both are easy from God. Walking out one's faith is harder than holding to it in the abstract.

I guess I'll resubmit one of my old posts from the other thread, for you, as regards miracles.

[Lief Erikson]

Here you go, GrayMouser . Please read the first two articles I linked- they're very important. Number 3 is less important, though still valuable.

Post 912 from Theology III, originally sent to Coffeehouse on page 46, presented here with a very small number of modifications:

Coffeehouse, are you ever going to read this article?
*Posts it for the third time.*
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/vmary.htm

You're consistently refusing to pay attention, or often even respond to, the evidence I provided. All the available evidence indicates that the Virgin Mary did just what you're asking about- parted heaven and came down for all to see. And at least a million people saw her- that's the conservative estimate. I've seen other sites claim millions plural.

There have been many other cases, beyond Zeitoun, where similar miracles have happened too, witnessed by hundreds of thousands and occurring at various parts of the world.

As I've said before, the resurrection of Christ is among the strongest evidences supporting Christianity. We know that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven because his disciples, claiming to have witnessed it all firsthand, died for their firsthand testimonies. You might die for something you incorrectly believe to be true, but you don't die for testimony you know is a lie.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Jesus fulfilled incredible numbers of Old Testament prophecies. At the time of his coming, there were 40 prophecies of the Messiah that were universally accepted among the Jews, and Jesus fulfilled them all, against all mathematical odds. He fulfilled over 150 others that hadn't been recognized as prophecies until he'd fulfilled them. The disciples preached these messages of fulfilled prophecies to the same people who had observed them -- the Gospel accounts were all accepted in the Early Church because they were the story the disciples had been telling -- and these messages were spoken to eyewitnesses of the events described. The people knew whether what the disciples were telling was true or false on many occasions because many of them had been there. Many of Jesus' mighty deeds or teachings, or the events of his life, were seen by crowds of thousands. So the disciples had immense motive to be accurate.

The Gospels are dated to within the first century AD, within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could contradict what was said. So again, motive for accuracy. Many details of the books also show the immense effort to be accurate that was put into them. For instance, the lofty role of women in the Book of Luke and other parts of the Gospels contradicted the cultural norms of the time, and the disciples, the leaders of the Church, were portrayed often as idiots and cowards. You don't portray your leaders that way if you want to attract followers, unless you're devoted to the truth. The same with women- you don't say that the first person to see Jesus raised from the dead was a woman, or that the first people to receive word of Jesus' birth from angels were shepherds. You don't teach that one of your precious Gospels was written by Matthew, a tax collector, one of those who would be judged severely by the surrounding Jewish community. There are other details too, that you might prefer to omit, such as Jesus' cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" which has been taken by some as a sign of weakness. You might also be tempted to slip into the Gospels, if you were willing to play with the truth, some mention of Jesus' opinion of circumcision. At the time the Gospels were written, that was an enormous debate in the Church, and some word from Jesus on the matter would have cleared it up for all. They didn't include one because there wasn't one, and they were trying to be accurate.

There are loads of details like this that indicate the effort of the Gospel writers to tell the truth. They also are more reliable as testimony than any other manuscript from ancient history. The most supported ancient text aside from the New Testament is Homer's Iliad, for which 643 texts survive, a 95% accuracy to the original manuscripts is calculated, and the earliest manuscripts are dated to 500 years after the originals. With the New Testament, a 99.5% accuracy to the originals is calculated, the earliest documents are dated to within one century of the originals, and there are 5,600 copies from that early period. It is the best supported ancient history text without any comparison.
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

The odds of Jesus fulfilling all the prophecies he fulfilled by coincidence are mathematically impossible.

The probability that the disciples would purposefully lie that they'd seen Jesus rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, and then would all (note ALL, not one or two) rather be tortured to death than confess otherwise, is absurdly small. It takes much fewer than eleven living eyewitnesses to prove a murder case. Ten witnesses (the eleventh enduring persecution and exile rather than changing his story) willing to prove their testimony by dying tortured deaths for it is INFINITELY stronger than that.

So from a mathematical or legal perspective, the testimony supporting Christ's deity is irrefutable.

That isn't even getting into the millions of miraculous experiences that fill Church history to the present (as the incident I linked in Zeitoun shows), or the most important evidence of all: That anyone who seeks God can come to know him personally. When this happens, from personal experience, the testimony supporting Christ's deity becomes incredibly powerful. There are hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide who can give you testimonies of this.

Sometimes, God does open heaven and come down. It has happened before and it still happens from time to time, as the Virgin Mary incident I linked shows. Here's a site that documents other Virgin Mary apparitions: http://www.marypages.com/

The evidences are too numerous to count. Ultimately, believing these proofs takes an act of faith (even if only a small one, for someone who's extremely rational). Believing any proof requires faith, and this is both logical and necessary.

Back in the time of the Garden of Eden, God was visible to humanity and could be heard. They saw him as you and other humans could see each other. They chose not to believe him, though, and to sin by disobeying when they partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. That original gap, unbelief, can only be closed by belief. Unbelief is like people running away from God. In fact, Adam and Eve literally did this in the Garden of Eden, running away and hiding themselves so God wouldn't see them. That's what we all do when we choose not to believe him. It's the common sin of humanity- we've all done it through our unbelief.

God has given humanity countless proofs, but ultimately, we must believe them. We must believe Him. That is how the original sin of Adam and Eve is undone: the sin of unbelief is undone by believing. That is the natural and necessary cure. Through unbelief we flee God and close our eyes to the vision of his wonders. We can't see God as we would wish to because through our sin we shut our eyes. Trustlessness can only be cured by trust. And evidence definitely helps.

So pray that God will show you the evidence in a way that you can accept it. Close the door as you have been doing (by digging for reasons NOT to believe and then clinging to them no matter what) and of course God will be locked on the other side, hammering and shouting in vain. Of course you won't see him if you shut him out! Seek him and he'll be glad to show himself to you. The distance made by faithlessness can only be closed by faith- and it takes a little faith just to seek him. That's all that's needed.

And it's the most rational activity of humanity.

[Lief Erikson]

Here's another part of what I wrote in Theology III:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You asked for God to open the heavens and show himself. The Virgin Mary has done that [at Zeitoun, photographed by the international press] and reported worldwide. She appeared to at least a million people of a variety of faiths, accompanied by stars forming circles around her, covered by a halo over her head, sometimes seen carrying the Christ-child in her arms, surrounded by doves and angels shining with light (also photographed, though the brilliance of the glow contrasted with the night sky doesn't make for clear pictures). White smoke smelling of incense rose from the ground, also in plain view and smelled and seen by thousands. You demanded this kind of spectacular show. Your wish is granted. God did it. A million people saw it, including the president of the country and the international press, and blind people and the sick were healed. You have your wish. Think about it.

More pictures, and some accounts:
http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm

GrayMouser, I'd appreciate your at least scanning this article too.

I've been doing a lot of work to get you non-Christians stacks of the evidence you desire. So if you want to do any more complaining about lack of evidence, you might as well read what I've collected for you folks first.

[GrayMouser]

Start with the New Testament first- and sorry, busy time of year. I assure you I have read numerous accounts of Zeitoun and other Marian apparitions over the last few weeks- I'm always slow on the draw with replies, so again apologies.]

Lief said

As I've said before, the resurrection of Christ is among the strongest evidences supporting Christianity. We know that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven because his disciples, claiming to have witnessed it all firsthand, died for their firsthand testimonies. You might die for something you incorrectly believe to be true, but you don't die for testimony you know is a lie.

Having never followed the later careers of the Apostles, I went to Apostles.com (a Catholic site), and while their FAQ states forthrightly that eleven of the twelve were martyred, when you go to the actual bios they list, things are much vaguer.
Bartholomew, for example: they admit they don’t even know who he was for sure; and the accounts of his death are “equally uncertain.”

St. Jude:”Little else is known of his life. Legend claims that he visited Beirut and Edessa; possibly martyred with St. Simon in Persia.”

Matthias: “All further information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory”

Philip: “The second-century tradition concerning him is uncertain, inasmuch as a similar tradition is recorded concerning Philip the Deacon and Evangelist -- a phenomenon which must be the result of confusion caused by the existence of the two Philips.”

Simon:” The Greeks, Copts, and Ethiopians identify him with Nathanael of Cana; the first-mentioned also identify him with the bridegroom of the marriage of Cana, while in the "Chronicon paschale" and elsewhere he is identified with Simon Clopas. The Abyssinians accordingly relate that he suffered crucifixion as the Bishop of Jerusalem, after he had preached the Gospel in Samaria. Where he actually preached the Gospel is uncertain. Almost all the lands of the then known world, even as far as Britain, have been mentioned; according to the Greeks, he preached on the Black Sea, in Egypt, Northern Africa, and Britain, while, according to the Latin "Passio Simonis et Judae" -- the author of which was (Lipsius maintains) sufficiently familiar with the history of the Parthian Empire in the first century -- Simon laboured in Persia, and was there martyred at Suanir. However, Suanir is probably to be sought in Colchis. According to Moses of Chorene, Simon met his death in Weriosphora in Iberia; according to the Georgians, he preached in Colchis. His place of burial is unknown. “
And so on.

So some Apostles were martyred, some we have vague and conflicting claims on, and some we’re not even sure who they are.
Of three martyrdoms actually mentioned in the New Testament, James the Greater was one of the original Apostles, whereas neither Stephen nor Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh- so we can see from both the Bible and all history that it’s entirely possible for people to welcome martyrdom for things they have only heard about second-han

[Lief Erikson]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to look that up, GrayMouser!

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

So some Apostles were martyred, some we have vague and conflicting claims on, and some we’re not even sure who they are.

I agree that it's uncertain who some of them are. The Gospels tell very little about the stories of some of them (or nothing), except to say that they were with Jesus or participating in his miracles or preaching at various events described in the Gospels.

The best evidence about each of them (except John and Judas) says they were martyred. There are sometimes conflicting accounts, but I believe they're conflicting martyrdom accounts. I haven't seen any reputable historians or scholars denying any of the martyrdoms, and I have seen reputable ones saying they were all martyred.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Of three martyrdoms actually mentioned in the New Testament, James the Greater was one of the original Apostles, whereas neither Stephen nor Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh- so we can see from both the Bible and all history that it’s entirely possible for people to welcome martyrdom for things they have only heard about second-han

Agreed- but that says nothing about the martyrdoms of the disciples who did claim to be eyewitnesses. Also, Paul said he was an eyewitness.

[GrayMouser]

It’s worth noting that Jesus fulfilled incredible numbers of Old Testament prophecies. At the time of his coming, there were 40 prophecies of the Messiah that were universally accepted among the Jews, and Jesus fulfilled them all, against all mathematical odds.

I’d have to see a list of those prophecies but I’d note:

"Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage,[a] at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. 3 And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.”
4 All[b] this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
5 “ Tell the daughter of Zion,

‘ Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”[c]"

6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him[d] on them.

Matthew 21: 4-8

And of course the other Gospels, having interpreted the passage correctly, contradict Matthew .
So, not only (as I’ve pointed out before) was the writer of the Gospel thrown by the Hebrew practice of parallelism in poetry, but Jesus and His followers were deliberately taking action to fulfill the prophecies.

If a prophecy says the saviour shall have blue hair, be covered with snakes and speak Swahili, and I, being fully aware of the prophecies, go to Lois’s Dye Shoppe, Ed’s Tattoo Emporium, and spend ten years in Tanzania, will you wonder at the marvel that the prophecies were fulfilled?

Not to mention that the Gospels were written thirty to seventy years after the death of Jesus by people who were had a vested interest in showing that Jesus did in fact fulfill the Old Testament prophecies.

[GrayMouser]

The disciples preached these messages of fulfilled prophecies to the same people who had observed them -- the Gospel accounts were all accepted in the Early Church because they were the story the disciples had been telling -- and these messages were spoken to eyewitnesses of the events described. The people knew whether what the disciples were telling was true or false on many occasions because many of them had been there. Many of Jesus' mighty deeds or teachings, or the events of his life, were seen by crowds of thousands.

Who, as it turned out, did not believe Him.
One thing I'm sure that all accounts agree upon is that Christianity did not sweep through Palestine. In fact, we hear over and over again about the stubbornness of the Jews in not acknowledging the Messiah.

The people of the area, who had the closest knowledge of the situation...remained Jews.

The Gospels, Letters and Acts all agree that the Jews of Palestine- the people you cite as witnesses- rejected the message of the risen Christ, and because of that rejection it had to be taught to the Jews of the Diaspora and to Gentiles- those who lived far from Palestine and had no knowledge of what went on there.





The Gospels are dated to within the first century AD, within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could contradict what was said.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm pretty sure I'll get to your various above points at some point, GrayMouser. Just may take me a while- I'm a bit distracted, and in a few days I'll be going to Washington DC for a month.



In the meantime, I wanted to bring up something else I ran into on BBC News today. A Muslim woman from Morroco has been denied citizenship in France because she submits to her male relatives. This behavior has been deemed "incompatible with French values," and has been labeled, "radical Islam."

To me, this looks like a direct attack on French Religious Freedom. What do others here think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7503757.stm

[Nurvingiel]

But her husband is French! Her children is French! Nous sommes les Borg Francais, vouz assimiliriez?

(Edited to try to fix my crappy French grammar.)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Just may take me a while- I'm a bit distracted, and in a few days I'll be going to Washington DC for a month.

Lief what are you doing in DC? Are you coming to take over the government and supplant it with your own theocratic dictatorship? Let me know cause I want to watch.

[GrayMouser]

Yep, have a great visit Lief. I'd especially recommend the quotes engraved in the Jefferson Memorial:

Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively.

[Lief Erikson]

Yeah, I'll keep that quote in mind around the same time I think about this :
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,7730914.story

Originally Posted by The LA Times

Making good on a promise to a friend to summarize his views on Christianity, Thomas Jefferson set to work with scissors, snipping out every miracle and inconsistency he could find in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Then, relying on a cut-and-paste technique, he reassembled the excerpts into what he believed was a more coherent narrative and pasted them onto blank paper -- alongside translations in French, Greek and Latin.

In a letter sent from Monticello to John Adams in 1813, Jefferson said his "wee little book" of 46 pages was based on a lifetime of inquiry and reflection and contained "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

[. . .]

"I have performed the operation for my own use," he continued, "by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter, which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dunghill."

These thoughts about God's Sacred Word came out of the same Enlightenment-inspired mind . As the LA Times says about him,

"He was a product of his age," said Ferrell, whose upcoming book, "The Bible and the People," includes a chapter on the Jefferson Bible. "Yet, he is the least likely person I'd want to pray with. He was more skeptical about religion than the other Founding Fathers."

In Jefferson's version of the Gospels, for example, Jesus is still wrapped in swaddling clothes after his birth in Bethlehem. But there's no angel telling shepherds watching their flocks by night that a savior has been born. Jefferson retains Jesus' crucifixion but ends the text with his burial, not with the resurrection.

He's not the man I'll be taking religious advice from .


I may visit the memorial, though. I haven't entirely decided which places exactly I'll go to.

I'll definitely be going to the Lincoln Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I also want to go to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure where else, exactly, at present.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Yep, have a great visit Lief.

Thanks .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lief what are you doing in DC? Are you coming to take over the government and supplant it with your own theocratic dictatorship? Let me know cause I want to watch.

Trust me, if I ever get such notions, I'll give you a call so you can come and watch the show .


PS: Not that that could ever happen, of course. I strongly oppose violent rebellion, for a combination of religious and practical reasons.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He was more skeptical about religion than the other Founding Fathers."

And that takes some doing!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Not quite theology, but related news.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not quite theology, but related news.

Mmm. *Shakes head in wonder.* Wow . . .

[Coffeehouse]

Well, this http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...ast/tablet.php is quite the discovery!
Can't wait to hear the excuses