[creation] Re: Guidelines/further questions
- From: "Knarr" <knarrrj@xxxxxxx>
- To: <creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 22:01:58 -0500
Neville,
Thank you for trying to clarify things. I do have one question. You say,
"4. I will, under no circumstances, allow remarks or postings that are
anti-Jewish." Are you to be so tolerant of Jews and not so of other religions?
Why just Jews??
You say, "I will allow the discussion of doctrine on the forum, as long as
it is tolerant and as long as all contributors are fully and constantly aware
that they are not here to convert anyone. (Please do not, for example, attack
anyone just because they are Catholic. If you disagree with a Catholic doctrine
- as, indeed, I do - then feel free to politely say so and give your reasons."
Does this mean I am not free to make comments on Jews as Jews, but that if
the situation warrants it, in my mind, I may quote what I consider wrong in
Jews teaching from their Talmud as long as I am fully and constantly aware that
I am not here to convert anyone and politely say so, such as:
Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement.", or
Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have
no portion in the world to come., or
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less
than nine years old., or
Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is
nothing.", or
Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben
Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be
killed")?
Now nothing could be more polite. I would be only quoting from their own high
holy book. I am not ashamed for anyone to quote from any official Catholic
Document.
If the discussion is not to be strictly held to Geocentrizm I think I
should be as free to comment on Jew's religious teaching as others are to
comment on the teachings of the Catholic Church, don't you?
I'm not angry or irate, just asking. Ronald Knarr
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 7:09 PM
Subject: [creation] Guidelines
This is very interesting indeed. One minute we are all sailing along quite
merrily, the next minute all hell breaks loose, if you'll excuse the pun.
Philip (Snow)'s posting, entitled "HELL!!," covered a number of fundamental,
doctrinal issues. Should we here discuss our disagreements, just as Peter and
Paul had to reason out theirs? Well, we could do, as long as we realize that we
are not going to reach a concensus.
You see, on this forum, we have unitarians and trinitarians, Catholics and
non-Catholics, Jews and Gentiles. There is only one thing that unites us all -
we all accept that the cosmos was created by God.
In addition to this, I am under an obligation to maintain, as our main
priority, a technical slant to this forum. This is because freelists.org
provide the service I use, specifically with this proviso.
I therefore have to decree the following:
1. Our discussions are to be primarily concerning the scientific, technical
and logical aspects of the Creation/evolution debate.
2. I will allow the discussion of doctrine on the forum, as long as it is
tolerant and as long as all contributors are fully and constantly aware that
they are not here to convert anyone. (Please do not, for example, attack anyone
just because they are Catholic. If you disagree with a Catholic doctrine - as,
indeed, I do - then feel free to politely say so and give your reasons. Once
the point has been made, and defended, then we need to move on again with those
matters that unite us.)
3. It is up to the individual as to whether they choose to inform the group
of their position on Scriptural teachings.
4. I will, under no circumstances, allow remarks or postings that are
anti-Jewish.
Within the context of the above, I am prepared to instigate a discussion of
the word, "hell," based upon my understanding of Scripture:
The word "hell," used in the King James version of the Bible to represent
three original Hebrew and Greek words, conjures up images of a big, horned,
tailed, red bloke with something like a pitch fork, tormenting people. This is
a popular depiction and should, of course, be kept separate from any meaning
that the word itself, which dates from before 1150 AD (or CE), has.
The Hebrew word translated as 'hell' is sheol, which, as far as I understand
it (we do have a native Hebrew speaker on this forum who could correct me),
means the common grave of mankind, that is always reaching out for more.
The two Greek words are hades, which means a grave, and gehenna, which means
a dump where rubbish is burnt.
Hell, then, is simply the grave. It can be a memorial grave, in which case
the occupier will be resurrected back into a physical body at the last day; or
not, in which case the spirit tossed into it is destroyed, never to return.
There is no torture chamber (much to Rumsfeld's disgust, no doubt). That it is
eternal, simply means that the fire is never quenched, not that spirits are
forever punished.
Jesus' spirit was in a memorial grave for three days, and his first physical
body was (temporarily, until God removed it) placed in a physical grave. He was
never dominated and tormented for three days, nor even for three nanoseconds,
in a fiery "hell" by some sort of "devil." Indeed, such an idea is unthinkable
to me.
I hope that this mail is received by all in the spirit in which it was
written.
Neville.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
