RE: [metatuning] free cures [was: vestigal stuff]

remember that jesus said "which is easier- to say get up and walk or say
your sins be forgiven"?. Its a kind of strange elocution (alas i have no
koine) but i thot it meant they were basically the same, that is, you get
cured by having your sins forgiven.

jesus says "go and >sin no more<", implying that it was sinnin' that caused
the poor fellow's infirmity in the first place. "go and sin no more >OR<
worse will happen": read: if you keep on sinnin' you be even more sorry than
you wuz before!"

> Surely it is self-evident that some kinds of
> misbehaving can lead to a physical illness.

O course. The problem is, how do you explain a child born sick and crippled?
Is he paying for Adam's sin? According to that church wanker quoted in the
article, I imagine the answer would be "yes." Maybe what he really meant to
say was, if you don't put enough money in the collection plate god will give
you cancer. God forbid he might have to go out and get a real job!

Dante the Anticheirst, and the free of my hand to him!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: X. J. Scott [mailto:xjscott@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 12:44 AM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] free cures [was: vestigal stuff]
>
>
>
> > "He quoted the Gospel of St John, which describes Jesus
> > curing a crippled man he found lying on a pallet by the pool
> > of Bethesda in Jerusalem. Jesus told the man, who had been
> > crippled for 38 years: "Take up your bed and walk". Finding
> > him later in the temple, Jesus ordered the cured man to "go
> > and sin no more, or something worse may happen to you"."
>
> > This parable clearly implys that future misbehavin' may bring
> > down the wrath of god on the poor newly-cured wretch. Again,
> > not original sin.
>
> Jesus does not say that the 'wrath of god' will be the
> source of the something-worse-than-being-crippled. Nor
> did he say that the being-crippled was punishment for
> sin or the wrath of God. Why not say that they original
> crippling was the result of some natural process? And
> that Jesus cured the man, who had done nothing for
> Jesus, out of his love and concern for the man,
> expecting the man to do nothing for him in return - did
> Jesus send him a bill for doctoring services? I think
> not.
>
> What is so wrong with what Jesus said? Is it so
> different from a doctor telling someone to take care,
> or be more careful in the future? Would we call such a
> doctor a bad man? Would we call him a pea-brain? Maybe
> we would! Maybe that is all man is about -- someone
> cures a man and charges him nothing and expresses
> concern for him, and he responds by throwing rocks at
> the doctor and mocking him.
>
> Surely it is self-evident that some kinds of
> misbehaving can lead to a physical illness.
>
> But is physical illness the worse that could happen to
> a man? Perhaps a spiritual illness or death is worse.
> Imagine someone who goes on a mad killing spree,
> brutally slaughtering hapless children and eating them.
> This behavior does not leave the spirit unscathed!
> One can not simply do as one pleases and expect that it
> will not affect him, nor that if it does affect him,
> that it is not his own personal responsibility;
> something he has brought upon himself.
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

>>Surely it is self-evident that some kinds of
>>misbehaving can lead to a physical illness.
>
>O course. The problem is, how do you explain a child born sick
>and crippled? Is he paying for Adam's sin? According to that
>church wanker quoted in the article, I imagine the answer would
>be "yes."

In some sense, all that is imperfect in man is his fault (sin).
But most correct here is the response that it is not within
man's ability (or place) to speculate on such matters as sickness
at birth.

The only thing I know of that really asks the right question is
the missionary axiom -- the "there is no other way but through
me" and 'I make disciples of you all' that almost every Christian
accepts. Here you can explain Christianity as a meme that needs
to reproduce, and it seems hard to argue that this explanation is
not exclusive with and much better than ancient documents detailing
ancient miraculous events. Further, there is the question of
people who die without ever being exposed to Christianity due to
the geographical location of their birth, vs. the idea that God is
fair and loving. Some Christians believe Christ visited other
cultures, and their sinful people rejected Him, or invoke the
'it's not our place to know' here, but playing into the above, it
tends to look weak. . .

-Carl

right-o Carl,

the second you apply any kind of reasoning, logic or common sense to what
life-haters like Saul/Paul and his descendents made of the words of the
Nazarene, it collapses like a house of cards. See Neitzsche's "Antichrist"
for the last word on this sorry subject.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: clumma [mailto:carl@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 1:23 AM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: free cures [was: vestigal stuff]
>
>
> >>Surely it is self-evident that some kinds of
> >>misbehaving can lead to a physical illness.
> >
> >O course. The problem is, how do you explain a child born sick
> >and crippled? Is he paying for Adam's sin? According to that
> >church wanker quoted in the article, I imagine the answer would
> >be "yes."
>
> In some sense, all that is imperfect in man is his fault (sin).
> But most correct here is the response that it is not within
> man's ability (or place) to speculate on such matters as sickness
> at birth.
>
> The only thing I know of that really asks the right question is
> the missionary axiom -- the "there is no other way but through
> me" and 'I make disciples of you all' that almost every Christian
> accepts. Here you can explain Christianity as a meme that needs
> to reproduce, and it seems hard to argue that this explanation is
> not exclusive with and much better than ancient documents detailing
> ancient miraculous events. Further, there is the question of
> people who die without ever being exposed to Christianity due to
> the geographical location of their birth, vs. the idea that God is
> fair and loving. Some Christians believe Christ visited other
> cultures, and their sinful people rejected Him, or invoke the
> 'it's not our place to know' here, but playing into the above, it
> tends to look weak. . .
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

In a message dated 2/7/02 9:52:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dante.interport@... writes:

> "a spiritual illness or death"

is more to the point of what might be more relevant.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]