Quotable Heinlein Discussion Boards

"Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?"

Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic		Previous Topic | Next Topic
Home Conferences Religion (Public)
Original message

SailFree Aug-08-03, 09:19 AM (EST) "Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Folks, I recall the scene in SIASL where Mick Mahmoud says he isn't following strict Muslim dietary guidelines, that such restrictions are easing with the changing times, and Jubal laments that this isn't necessarily good. (I paraphrase) The modern Episcopal Church schism re homosexual priests and homosexual "marriage" reminds me of that. From the WSJ today: "Testimony in the convention's hearing rooms seemed to bear this out. Speakers who urged approval of homosexual unions did not use the vocabulary or categories of thought of the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer. Instead, they appeared to embrace a new gospel, heavily influenced by America's secular, therapeutic culture. This gospel has two watchwords: inclusion and affirmation. Its message? Jesus came to make us feel good about ourselves. Adherents of the gospel of inclusion offered arguments like this: "The church should bless same-sex partnerships so everyone feels included." "People will want to join this church if they see others being welcomed." "God is love. He doesn't care about the gender of the people we love." This week's events in Minneapolis suggest that, in 2003, the three historic bulwarks of Episcopal Church doctrine--Scripture, tradition and reason--are crumbling in the face of the gospel of inclusion and affirmation. To be sure, the new gospel's disciples do not generally jettison Scripture outright. Instead, they radically reinterpret it, using techniques imported from America's postmodern universities. Walter Brueggemann, a theologian quoted in a pro-same-sex-union Episcopal publication, put it like this: Scripture is "the chief authority when imaginatively construed in a certain interpretive trajectory." Approached this way, inconvenient passages can be dismissed as inconsistent with "Jesus' self-giving love."" Does that bizarre phrase, "Scripture is "the chief authority when imaginatively construed in a certain interpretive trajectory."," mean the same as when the liberals claim "the Constitution is a living document?" That is, we can ignore it if we cook up some warm-hearted, fuzzy-headed phraseology that sounds good to enough people? --Al   Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Table of contents

RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-08-03, (1) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-08-03, (2) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Aug-08-03, (3) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Suzela, Aug-08-03, (4) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-08-03, (5) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Aug-08-03, (6) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-15-03, (29) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Sep-15-03, (31) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-21-03, (39) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Aug-09-03, (7) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-09-03, (8) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Aug-09-03, (9) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-09-03, (10) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Suzela, Aug-09-03, (11) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Raydeen, Aug-10-03, (13) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Aug-10-03, (14) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-15-03, (30) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Sep-16-03, (32) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Sep-16-03, (33) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Sep-16-03, (34) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Sep-16-03, (35) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-21-03, (40) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Sep-22-03, (44) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Suzela, Sep-18-03, (36) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Aug-10-03, (15) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Sep-19-03, (37) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Aug-10-03, (12) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-11-03, (16) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Aug-11-03, (17) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-11-03, (18) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Aug-11-03, (19) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Aug-11-03, (20) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Aug-12-03, (21) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-12-03, (22) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Aug-12-03, (23) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Aug-12-03, (24) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-12-03, (25) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Aug-12-03, (26) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Aug-14-03, (27) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Aug-14-03, (28) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Sep-19-03, (38) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-21-03, (41) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Sep-23-03, (46) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-21-03, (42) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Sep-23-03, (45) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Sep-23-03, (47) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-24-03, (49) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Sep-26-03, (52) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-26-03, (54) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Sep-29-03, (59) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-21-03, (43) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Sep-23-03, (48) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-24-03, (50) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Suzela, Sep-25-03, (51) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Sep-26-03, (53) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-26-03, (55) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Laddi , Sep-26-03, (56) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Sep-28-03, (57) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Sep-28-03, (58) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Oct-02-03, (60) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., SailFree, Oct-03-03, (61) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Suzela, Oct-03-03, (62) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Willis, Oct-04-03, (63) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Mike Flynn, Oct-14-03, (64) RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Tim..., Suzela, Oct-14-03, (65)

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

Laddi Aug-08-03, 10:12 AM (EST) 1. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" AL I take it this means you are against the church having a gay bishop? Why? laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-08-03, 10:12 AM (EST) 2. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" AL I take it this means you are against the church having a gay bishop? Why? laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Aug-08-03, 12:59 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-03 AT 01:01 PM (EST) Hi, laddi, I haven't thought that one out. I am not even sure, as yet, whether I am against or for gay marriage. I do see that there will be an awful lot of changes proceeding from that if it does happen, most of them not even considered by most people and the government. Indeed, if one thinks about it, Heinlein was certainly not a strict and doctrinaire religionist, was he? Far as I know, he didn't hold with any religion other than, perhaps, the one he invented himself (or adopted, if one goes with the similar "church" of multiple layers previously described by another). So, really, my point would be "Was Heinlein being sincere when he had Jubal lament the decline of orthodoxy, or was he not?" --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Suzela Aug-08-03, 02:57 PM (EST) 4. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" You know,as a Jew I don't know if I'm qualified to hold an opinion on this one. But I read a similar article on the bishop and was struck by the same points Al is making. I don't particularly care about the sexuality of the Episcopalian (I know I spelled that wrong! What was the matter with Anglican anyway?? Much easier to spell!) bishopry or the sexuality of the members of any clergy so long as they keep their hands off the kids. And I don't happen to believe that every word in the Bible is sacred, handed down from God or the literal truth. But these bishops are screwing around with Scripture. IF in fact one does believe that every word in the Bible is true and divinely inspired which these people profess to do, then the fact, inclusive or not, is that the Bible --for whatever reason-- does condemn homosexuality. So, either you believe that every word is divinely inspired and should be followed or you don't. But if you do, you can't fumphy around with it to suit yourself.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-08-03, 03:08 PM (EST) 5. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Suzula and Al: I don't believe every word in the Bible as we know it was divinely inspired- that book has been translated and re-translated andre-translated and how could it possibly still be a 100% accurate version of what was written hundreds of years ago? Perhaps God is divine, but man is all too fallable (sp). In fact I question quite a bit of almost anything proporting to be a sacred writing. As for a gay bishop - why not? I'm sure there are thousands of decent people who are practicing homosexuals who are not child molesters. I do believe in IWFNE, Heinlein had Edith Branca gently rebuke Johann Smith about intolerance for homosexuals. The non reproductivity has become an asset on this overcrowded planet.. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Aug-08-03, 10:12 PM (EST) 6. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Gang, Wouldn't you know a pastor would want to weigh in on this? :~) As has been stated, if you believe the Bible to be infallible (I do and I'll try to explain in brief), then you can't change it to fit the mores of the day. Yes, the Bible DOES condemn homosexuality...and other sins. Yet, God still loves the sinner and desires him/her to repent. There will be other serious matters of omission that many will have to answer to God for someday--ignoring the starving of the world, refusing to walk in love, etc.--, but one of the greatest sins of commission will be in changing the Holy Scriptures for private use. Now on to infallibality: I believe that the Scriptures as originally given by God to human writers was, indeed, infallible. It has been proven that in the various translations from original manuscripts over the centuries that 98.3% has been accurately translated and that the remaining 1.7% has no bearing on vital doctrine. This is rather brief and you may have more questions, but I am ready! ;~) Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-15-03, 04:14 PM (EST) 29. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" >I don't believe every word in >the Bible as we know >it was divinely inspired- that >book has been translated and >re-translated andre-translated and how could >it possibly still be a > 100% accurate version of >what was written hundreds of >years ago? Augustine commented on this very issue 1600 years ago, warning that to truly understand, the reader had to be able to read the Greek and Hebrew (he meant Aramaic) in which it was written. Any reading that does not further the two-fold love of God and neighbor, he wrote in On Christian Doctrine, is a false reading, and further that he knew many good Christians who lived the dual love who had no copy of scripture at all. The whole literal-meaning, scripture-only approach is relatively modern. Also, original manuscripts dating to the first century do exist in whole or in part, and modern translations have gone to these manuscripts, not to re-translating the Vulgate or the King James. Therefore, while the meanings may not always be clear -- Augustine pointed out the problem of colloquialisms in differing languages being untranslatable -- it is not a case of drift.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Sep-15-03, 04:49 PM (EST) 31. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Mike Flynn, I agree with most of what you are saying. However, if we are to construe that St. Augustine meant that we were not to recognize sin as sin, then I must disagree. Just as Jesus loves the sinner yet hates the sin, so must we. And before you get into "thou shalt not judge", we actually are to judge between Christian and non-Christian behavior. The Christian should judge himself and repent of any wrong-doing. The New Testament says we are to try (or, judge) the spirits to see if they be of God". Yes, there are sometimes slight mistranslations of any written work, but as you may know we have wonderful translations of the Bible today that are VERY accurate when held to the manuscripts and autographs we have today. Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-21-03, 06:51 PM (EST) 39. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Quite so. There is more to it than the words in the book.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Aug-09-03, 08:45 AM (EST) 7. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Suzela, Laddi, My general take would be that either one follows the rules of the church or one breaks away and starts one's own church, a la Martin Luther and his fallout with the Catholic Church. To stay in the church and then subvert its basic, supposedly immutable-from-god teachings, seems incorrect to me. --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-09-03, 10:08 AM (EST) 8. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Willis: Who determined that the Bible was translated so accurately - couldn't have been God - had to be man and i believe that we have all agreed that man is fallible (still can't spell it). Actually, i have no problem with folk wanting to believe in Christianity - but most of them should read their own sacred writings - they certainly don't act like the Carpenter . I despise most of them because they talk (and talk and talk) about how good they are, but their actions are far from any sort of decency. Plus, i prefer what Mike said _"I am the son of man" to what the Nazerine is proported to have said, "I am the son of God" The ideals of Christianity are good - but if i use them as a measuring stick - i only know one Christian - and he is Jewish, an Agnostic/Athiest (depending how well the day went) and a total truth-seeker laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Aug-09-03, 06:05 PM (EST) 9. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Ah, Laddi, We bump heads again. There is really no use in having a religion forum as its basic use seems to be to tear others down. Having said that, let me gently try to cut to the heart of why you are knocking Christianity: You know some really bad examples who claim to be Christians and you have painted all of us with the same brush. I have read SIASL and I want to remind you that RAH wrote it as fiction. I have also read the Bible and want to remind you that it was written as Truth. Therefore, what Mike says carries very little weight with me compared to what Jesus said. Also, He is no longer "the Carpenter", He is, indeed, the Son of God and our Lord and Savior, hence He is not to be compared to someone's likes and dislikes as most of us compare Heinlein to, say, Andre' Norton. You are mostly parroting what you have HEARD is wrong with Christianity rather than relating what you have researched and KNOW is wrong or right. One basic tenet of this board is: Think for yourself! Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-09-03, 08:10 PM (EST) 10. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Willis: One of my grandfathers was a highly educated presbyterian minister - the other a footwashing, self-annoited baptist preacher. I think i have studied the religions of hte world pretty thoroughly and any comment i make is from not only reading but believe me, from more experince than i like to remember. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Suzela Aug-09-03, 10:15 PM (EST) 11. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Willis, Laddi, and all, I have met Christians who absolutely do walk in the way, are wonderful, loving people who behave the way I believe Jesus would have wanted them to (from what I've read in the New Testament if a Jew is allowed an opinion on the subject) people who have prayed for me and with me, people who radiate love and would do anything to help their fellow man and woman, people who personify just what a Christian professes to be. People, who if I could get my logical, Jewish, questioning mind past the "God as man, Jesus, son of God" concept which I can't, might have inspired me to walk their way. I have also met professing Christians such as Laddi describes, such as the pigs who just were forced out of my rental house after not paying their rent for three months even after we lowered it $200/month when they fell on hard times (tell me another landlord who would do that!), who trashed my house so that it has cost me over $1500 to make it habitable again and I'm not done yet. Tom says I have to stop referring to them as "Christians" as the way I say it sounds more like "nigger" (they were white, btw), but I just remember the man saying, when I commented,"Oh, you're a truck driver," "No, truck driving is what I do. What I am is a Christian." And he went on to pontificate and testify for me. But, you know what? I won't paint all Christians with that brush because I know so many more of the first kind. And I know Jews that I wouldn't particularly want to be around and good Moslems and Buddhists and agnostics and atheists. I hope the time is past when we all worry about "being a credit to our race." I'm not qualified to have an opinion on how well or not the Bible has been translated as I read neither Aramaic or ancient Greek. I do know that when the Old Testament was being codified in Babylon after the first Diaspora after the fall of the first Temple that books were left out, stuff was rewritten. Most Biblical scholars agree that there were several writers involved and that the writers/editors were struggling to make often conflicting reports coordinate. That's ok. My point with the whole gay priest thing is that one should be consistent. Either you believe that the Bible is whole, sacred, the word of God and to be followed or you don't. But you don't do it just when it's convenient. And whether you believe the Bible is the divine Word of God brought down from Mt. Sinai or not, I don't think that many people could argue Thou Shalt Not Murder is a good tenet to follow, that Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery makes for a better community, that Thou Shalt Not Covet what is thy Neighbor's is a much more comfortable way to live...anyway, you get the idea. And if you don't like "I am the Lord thy God, Thou Shalt Have No Other gods before Me," well, ok. That's between you and Him. Suze   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Raydeen Aug-10-03, 09:46 AM (EST) 13. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Most of my family believes the Bible is 100% truth, which is fine. But haven't you'all seen the email which asks questions similar to, "The Bible says I should sacrifice my virgin daughter. Should I send out invitations?" Obviously I am spoofing, but many parts of the Bible would be a horrific crime if the words were carried out literally. Therefore, I could only live with using the Bible as a guide and not literal truth. I think gay marriage would be a good thing. It would legally formalize unions and give them the same status as male-female marriage. It might even cause the gay community to think in a more committed manner. Right now, there is no option for them to take a solid relationship further, so there is more of a tendency to just play the field. As for the gay bishop, why not? If you believe the party line, didn't God create homosexuals? It isn't like they are an abberation, they have been around since the beginning of recorded history. Did God create them just to punish them? That doesn't make sense, so shouldn't they have a place in the leadership of the church? Ok, here is another theoretical question. People often refer to their dead departed loved ones looking down on them from Heaven. They take comfort that Grandma is watching them take their vows of marriage or can see Junior graduate. But doesn't that mean that Grandma can see all the other stuff we do, too? I don't want to think of her viewing sex or the like. Do they just look away? Aren't they still human and what curious person could resist? Are they still human? All right, I am way out of my league here. This question has crossed my mind from time to time (actually I think my daughter asked me once) and now I am wondering. Any ideas?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Aug-10-03, 11:09 AM (EST) 14. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Howdy, Raydeen, The major problem with gay marriage is: How is one going to stop at that stage and what are the harms that might befall society therefrom? That is, if marriage deviates from one-man-one-woman, where does it then stop? If Harry can marry Pete, why can't Harry marry Becky and Marie? Equal protection under the law, don'tcha know? And then, if privacy is guaranteed in the bedroom, what's to keep Harry from making out with Lolita? Equal protection again. And why can't Tom, #####, and Harry marry Jane and Alice and Lolita and their golden retriever? These aren't frivolous questions. Once one deviates from "marriage is one man and one woman," once one says that "private sexual behavior is not the purview of the government," then I think eventually all sorts of unions will be recognized as legal and equal. The ACLU is already getting their briefs in order on these points. Trust me! They are! The complications this will bring to tax law, insurance companies, medical care, etc., will be horrendous. Not to mential the quite possible breakdown of society in general. Are we really sure we want to start on that path? Even if we agree that we, as libertarian-type folks around here, are OK with all that, is society going to be able to handle it pragmatically? --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-15-03, 04:38 PM (EST) 30. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" >Most of my family believes the >Bible is 100% truth, which >is fine. But haven't >you'all seen the email which >asks questions similar to, "The >Bible says I should sacrifice >my virgin daughter. Should >I send out invitations?" It has been said that the Bible is always true, but that it is not always factual. In the same sense that the "Beauty and the Beast" fable is true without being factual. No such events ever took place, but the truth of the story remains: "Sometimes you must love someone before they can be lovable." Much of the Old Testament (which is where you generally find those commands to sacrifice daughters or slaughter eveyone in a town) was preserved from what was saved from a burning building. These preserved writings helped the Jews maintain a sense of their identity while in exile. (The mode of thought in those days was that your tribal god was supreme but only on his home ground. Hence the various requests, as to Elias, to "take back a box of dirt, so your god can come with me.") In the Exile, the Jews made a breakthrough to the concept of a universal God -- a concept historically pre-requisite to a scientific worldview. (Otherwise, the rules of the universe may change from deity to deity.) This was a breakthrough the exiled Israelites had failed to make and why they vanished as a self-aware folk. Only after the Rediscovery of Roman Imperial Law, with its emphasis on literal and lawerly readings, were these stories taken as commands of any sort. Rather, they were seen as a people's growth in understanding of the godhead, from bloodthirsty pagan tribal deity to god. (Recall that "god" is the Anglo-Saxon for "good." A useful distinction to "deity.") But throughout medieval times, the rule was that while some passages were evidently literal accounts, others were moral stories, or were simply told with the best understanding that the people of that age had. That's why Buridan could freely speculate in the 14th century that the Earth revolved and the sun was at the center, but Galileo ran into trouble in the 16th century. (Although his troubles actually had little to do with science.) The stumbling block of Biblical literalism affects both believers and unbelievers, with the one insisting that matters happened just-so and the other chortling /for the same reason/.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Sep-16-03, 09:27 AM (EST) 32. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Mike F., Indeed! Thanks much. --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Sep-16-03, 09:47 AM (EST) 33. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Some great science fiction stories lurk in the idea of the rules of the universe changing from deity to deity - that is if there is actually a deity Willis likes to point out that while the stories of RAH are great, they are after all only fiction - but for a great deal of recorded history great writers writing "only fiction" have changed the world. And in the case of RAH, so much of his fiction is now fact - and who's to say that his very writing about speculative things did nott help make them fact. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Sep-16-03, 10:03 AM (EST) 34. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Mike Flynn, Methinks you think too much. The Bible can't be reduced to "he said, she said". The Bible says of itself that it is of no private interpretation. You are pretty much saying that we can't, with any degree of reliability, know what the Bible is really saying. I believe you are very wrong. The Bible, as we know it today, is reproduced from more acurate historical documents than any ancient book in existence. This is verifiable. The intent of the Bible is not to convey a series of moral stories, but to point the world to the savior, Jesus Christ. You can read a number of books if you just want to "be good". Heck, just watch Dr. Phil or Oprah if you want some feel-good stories. Only the Bible points to the true answer, Jesus. I know many of you totally disagree. You feel it is one of many "philosophies". I'm sorry if you are led to believe that there are no certainties in this universe. It's one of the lies of our age. Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Sep-16-03, 01:37 PM (EST) 35. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Willis, Thanks much. All viewpoints considered. --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-21-03, 07:35 PM (EST) 40. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" >You are pretty much saying that we can't, with >any degree of reliability, know what the Bible >is really saying. >I believe you are very wrong. Actually you are wrong in your belief of what I am "pretty much saying." Remember that the Faith came first and then the Bible. That is, the Church in council decided which books to include and which to exclude. Some, like "1 Clement" were excluded because they were redundant; others like "The Acts of Paul and Thecla," because they were hoaxes; still others, like "The Gospel of Thomas," because they were formally heretical. It's not that "we can't know" but that knowledge comes from study and the traditions, and not solely from the literal word read in a naively literal manner. In other regards, and for more ancient texts, we have archeology and other tools. >The intent of the Bible is not to convey a >series of moral stories, but to point the world >to the savior, Jesus Christ. Well, yes; but in which direction does He point? Feed the hungry, clothe the naked... If you do this to the least among you, you do it to Me. Who is your neighbor? Everyone, not just your fellow-tribesmen. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, man and woman. Do good, even to your enemy. We have become so accustomed to think of these things as the right things that we no longer imagine that it was once not so. (Or that the struggle is not hard-won and on-going.) Even those who are no longer formally Christians are, to paraphrase Toynbee, inescapably ex-Christian or post-Christian.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Sep-22-03, 09:08 AM (EST) 44. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Mike Flynn, In all of your learned pontificating you have entirely missed the point of the Bible. You are very clever in repeating what various church fathers of centuries past have said about a number of topics. However, no matter how moral or steeped-in-good-works a person is, the main theme of the Bible is: Jesus, God in the flesh, is the only means of salvation and He must be accepted or rejected on that point alone. Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Suzela Sep-18-03, 06:56 AM (EST) 36. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Mike Flynn, A very historical, scholarly account. And from my own reading, very accurate. Well done and thank you. Suze   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Aug-10-03, 05:31 PM (EST) 15. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Laddi, Raydeen, Al, Suzela, Cubby, Annette, John Boy, Etc., Since we aren't going to change the world (much less each others view points) with our postings, let's ramble a little more. While man has always, even in Eden, been allowed free rein on his life we are always going to see things differently. Being free to choose has been the reason that one person chooses a life sold out to God and another chooses a life sold out to themselves. Save your flawed science; homosexuality IS a CHOICE. God did not create homosexuality, only the right to choose your direction. In the New Testament the Bible makes it very clear that men and women left the NATURAL use of their bodies and turned to those of the same sex and reaped the punishment thereof. AIDS definitely started as a gay disease, but is now everyone's problem due to rampant promiscuity in the gay community. Their choice to deviate has now affected many straight people. I firmly believe there is a right and wrong. Most people don't like that idea because they feel it prevents them from indulging in whatever they want and they reject absolutes. Again let me remind you: Whether it's RAH or another sci-fi author, it is still FICTION. Enjoy the books and quit trying to make them gospel. But, that's just MY view. Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Sep-19-03, 01:32 PM (EST) 37. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Willis: I have dealt with homosexuality both professionally and through knowing so many young men and women who are either gay or lesbian. Sometimes, mostly with women, it is not necessarily inborn but brought about by the treatment young women have received from the men in their lives -but, and this is a big but, many times it is inborn - there are both men and women who deep inside themselves are the opposite sex - remember what RAH had to say about bringing Andrew Libby back to life - about asking him over and over what he felt most comfortable as- yes, i know it is fiction - but it is well researched and well thought out fiction. By your reasoning, folk who are born with the sexual organs of both sexes chose that? I don't think so- Leave a divine being out of it and just deal with genetics and the science of it. Many of the gay men i know did not choose to be that way- but they are - i know men who have tried to be masculine and just can't be.Now in some instances our society is to blame - we want our men macho and our women feminine - and it just ain't that simple. Society sets the standards for masculine and feminine behavior- surely you have known men to whom blood shed and fighting are repulsive - and women who are bored silly by the typical so-called female things. That isn't what causes homexuality - that is just what causes a lot of heartache by trying to be something you can't. But there are both men and women who find the opposite sex totally repulsive sexually - and they aren't all folk you can look at and immediately diagnose - it is something they can't help - and btw, most of these folk are very private folk. They may live their entire lives without Mrs. Grundy ever snapping. Hopefully they don't try to be normal and marry the opposite sex- that's a recipe for disaster. Down here we call women like that "that girl - as in don't know what i can do with that girl - just can' t get her interested in a suitable man - all she cares about is her (take your pick) horses, dogs, books, etc." As for the men, we probably say, "He's a little light in the loafers, but it['s cause (take your pick) x, y or z broke his heart and he decided to devote himself to his mamma." And if you knew that girl or the dude, they often times have formed a lasting relationship with someone their own sex and have been with them for ages but in such a way as not to ruffle the feathers of Mrs. Grundy and her unholy sisterhood. Not dissing you, Willis, just i feel very strongly about this. Female homosexuality used to frighten me but not nearly as much as trying to live up to a standard t hat demanded i be dependent andalways less intelligent than the men with whom i came in contact - i was young and different and scared. Finally, i learned a bit about human sexuality and through that learned the diffence between sexuality and personality. This made lesbians less frightening - in fact, i felt sorry for them cauase they would never have the pleasure of enjoying a man and would always have to hide and get their kicks from other women without learnign how much fun men and their silly ways of thinking are. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Aug-10-03, 09:04 AM (EST) 12. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Laddi, Suzela, Willis, et al, Coincidentally, the WSJ www.opinionjournal.com site just today, Sunday, had this piece. Quite congruent (a Horst Congruency?) with what I have been thinking. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003866 --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-11-03, 09:26 AM (EST) 16. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Willis, Al yes, heinlein is fiction - but some of his ideas display a great deal of sense, and the crazier our modern days are getting, the more sense they make- for instance, group marriages - to me that makes a wonderful kind of sense. I never have believed the so-called holy sacrement of marriage had to be limited to one man-one woman. To me marriage is a great survival of the species tool and as such must be able to adjust to the on-going climate of the world in which we live. If i choose to be monagmous (sp), that is my choice but I have no right to insist that the rest of the world submit to my choice. There are many religions other than Christianity and many of them accept plural marriages - some even almost demand them. Perhaps we all worship one diety - but we do so in different ways. BTW Willis - i used to be very tolerent of Christians until they began trying to convert me or "save" me all the time - my religion is a very private matter and i would never worship in the company of those who wish the world to know how pious they are. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Aug-11-03, 12:19 PM (EST) 17. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, laddi, Heck, being married to several women I know might be just fine and wonderful, but you don't deal with some other situations and you don't address how the loosening of societal proscriptions against such might affect the stability--even the survival--of our society and country. --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-11-03, 01:34 PM (EST) 18. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" AL: Somehow I don't t hink plural marriages or for that matter even homosexual marriages will doom our society. Like any other contract, marriages come in many flavors - and some people will always diss them, while others live within the framework of whatever contract they work out. Just think of the benefits to children of plural marriages - which btw don't have to be one man and several women - could be just the opposite. Anyhow - there would always be someone who could be with the children - no need for daycare, etc. There are many ways that could be worked out where adults who absolutely must work (or loose minds) could work without the guilt of not being a stay-at-home mom. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Aug-11-03, 06:43 PM (EST) 19. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Al, laddi, and so on, Boy, I'm glad our meanderings don't mean a hill of beans in the real world. We would invent a really bizzare existence. laddi, I'm sorry you mistook people trying to "save" you as being pious and religious. They apparently loved you very much. Anyway, who wants to be involved in a half-hearted religion where no one cares what you think or believe? What a bland existence! Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Aug-11-03, 07:09 PM (EST) 20. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Willis, As a devout agnostic, one who thinks, as Heinlein did, that the really great questions don't have answers discernible by human logic or thought, I think I might understand some of those who aren't very accepting of religious folks: Could they be feeling subconscious guilt and reacting violently therefrom? I'm comfortable with my agnosticism. Perhaps some people really aren't. Rats! Thinking again. When will I learn...? --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Aug-12-03, 10:06 AM (EST) 21. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Al, Just don't be among those of whom the Bible says, "They are ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth". If you're really looking for answers to the profound, I believe you will find them. Peace, love, and...oh, wait! That was another lifetime!! :~), Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-12-03, 10:06 AM (EST) 22. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" AL sorry, there is not a single iota of guilt concerning religion in my being -sometimes, there is some envy - how easy it must make life to unthinkingly accept everything to do with the whys and wherefores of existence - and to believe that there really is a heaven and hell (other than those of our own making). Willis - i don't mistake good pious folk- in a small, ingrown area such as this, if any really good folk existed (there are a few) - everyone would know and the folk possessing the quality of being good would not have to loudly proclaim it to all . To parapahrase, sometimes the greatest villians wear the most amiable faces - and we seem to have more than our share of villians. I think what bothers me the most is how the children are brainwashed - they aren't even allowed to explore what they believe or don't believe. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Aug-12-03, 12:12 PM (EST) 23. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, laddi, In the same way the religious seem to overdo it sometimes, so the anti-religious seem driven beyond a simple comfortable agnosticism. These folks, I admit, are usually NOT agnostic, but atheists, whose belief that they know there isn't a God seems as irrational and unprovable to me as someone's belief that he knows there IS! If someone is fervently anti-religious, I get the flavor that they are uptight about something! --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Aug-12-03, 01:13 PM (EST) 24. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" laddi, What a scary thought, that children would be left on their own to comw with the answers to life, both big and small. That's a large part of what's wrong with the current climate in America: A couple of generations raised with very little guidance; no revelation of right and wrong. And "NO" right and wrong aren't mere concepts. While we may disagree on certain areas of what is right and wrong, there must be certain absolutes such as not just maiming or murdering someone on whim. Children need parental guidance. If your "religion" is to let the kids do whatever they want, then mine is to give them a moral upbringing! Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-12-03, 01:27 PM (EST) 25. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Willis: You misunderstood me - you can raise a "moral" child without trying to brainwash them into any religion. Certainly there are certain absolute rights and wrongs - but no one groups holds the key - i don't mind the commandments that concern man's action to his fellow man (ie not killing, etc.) but did not try to make them follow any one creed. If they wanted to go to Sunday School with their friends, cool - but there was no demand that they do so..Since the only two churches i was exposed to were the catholic and episcopal, and before exposure my father made sure i was capable of making up my own mind, i could only do the same with my kids - and btw, both are successful, law abiding folk now. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Aug-12-03, 05:58 PM (EST) 26. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Laddi, Congrats on your children. I have no doubt that they are upstanding citizens. Both of my sons are grown, married, and have chosen to be in the ministry. They, too, are successful. I wasn't in the ministry until they were out of high school, so they made their own decision. By the way, I have 7 grandkids (I can't believe it). Do you have any yet? Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Aug-14-03, 03:20 PM (EST) 27. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Willis: My son Beau has one son - Christopher -who at less than three is already slightly computer savvy - Beau is a lawyer for microsoft!!! that is a hoot since i am a complete computer illiterate - i figure when they design one like Adam Selene that will solve all my problems with the pesky things - i'll just ask him what is wrong with him!!! laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Aug-14-03, 05:11 PM (EST) 28. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, laddi, Re the PA with the tattoo, it is indeed "willietattoos." I can send photo of her legs if you like. However, the only person she can recall discussing this with is a guy in Alabama who goes by "Jaybone" or something similar. You haven't had sexchange have you? --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Sep-19-03, 02:41 PM (EST) 38. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" AL: Hardly - in fact, being a man in this day and time seems like a problem - we fems can deal with today better than most men i know. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-21-03, 07:41 PM (EST) 41. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" >As a devout agnostic, one who thinks, as >Heinlein did, that the really great questions >don't have answers discernible by human logic Which, oddly, puts the "agnostics" in with the mystics of the 14th century and after. The scholastic movement, especially the Thomists, held that such matters were susceptible to logic and reason. The mystics denied this, claiming that it limited God's omnipotence.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Sep-23-03, 09:14 AM (EST) 46. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Mike F., Not to say that we can't have fun TRYING to reach the great answers to the great questions. --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-21-03, 07:53 PM (EST) 42. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" >how easy it must make life to unthinkingly >accept everything to do with the whys and >wherefores of existence There is nothing essentially religious about such an attitude. Conversely, consider that the entire notion of thinking about the whys and wherefores was nurtured by religious folk: Augustine, Aquinas, Ockham, Buridan, and the whole crew. They didn't all come to the same conclusions. The four I mentioned differed in various regards. But they certainly thought about it a great deal. Probably more so than most today. >Certainly there are certain absolute rights and >wrongs - but no one groups holds the key That's right. If someone has wronged you, you should take revenge upon them so that they do not do so again. Power is meant to be used. Let them hate, so long as they fear. Oh, wait. Wrong absolutes. I guess that group did not have the key.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Sep-23-03, 08:31 AM (EST) 45. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Touche, Mike Flynn - that is a good example of why i question almost anything that claims to be an absolute - unless it is scientific fact and here lately even that has become more and more slippery as we learn more and more. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Sep-23-03, 09:18 AM (EST) 47. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" LAST EDITED ON Sep-23-03 AT 09:31 AM (EST) Hi, Mike F. I really don't think that getting Richard Gere and other like-minded folk together and sending good vibes to the Muslim extremist terrorists will work. Arousing fear might work better. CRUSH OUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE US, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN. --Conan the Barbarian The mistake is, as Daniel Day O'Connor said in "Gangs of New York," in showing mercy and letting some escape and survive. They come backto haunt. As in stopping the first Gulf War before routing and killing Saddam and his henchmen completely. --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-24-03, 03:20 PM (EST) 49. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Or as Publilius Syrus wrote in his Maxims: De inimico non loquaris sed cogites. (Don't wish ill on your enemy, plan it!) But re Gulf War I, that was when we were being multilateral, and the world community had not authorized the removal of the National Socialists in Baghdad, only their removal from Kuwait. The hope was that the people would rise up and overthrow him, but they only did half of it, while we had to sit by and watch. Establishing the no-fly zones was the best we could do.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Sep-26-03, 09:05 AM (EST) 52. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Mike, Worse, when some did rise up, we refused to supply the air cover and allowed Saddam to massacre them. Showing mercy and/or being spineless wimps doesn't work in the world. And thanks for the quote. Mirabile dictu. --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-26-03, 12:49 PM (EST) 54. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Well, we didn't have the buy-in from the International Community for that. The UN writ was only to drive them out of Kuwait; thus far, and no farther. Even so, we got a lot of criticism for whacking the retreating army -- and an earful of Dire Predictions that Bush I would not stop, but go on to Baghdad. For the oil, of course.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Sep-29-03, 09:11 AM (EST) 59. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Mike Flynn, All good points. GHWB did what the UN authorized and stopped. Perhaps GWB was lucky the UN didn't enforce its own mandates. Gave him a bit of leeway to do what was necessary. Good points from the great Neal boortz: So ... here's your scenario. You're the president, and here is the information you have: America is under attack. Islamic terrorists are actively trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. There was and is evidence that Saddam Hussein was supporting Islamic terrorists. Saddam himself was making a big show of writing checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. You know that Saddam Hussein had both chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. You know that Saddam had already killed thousands of Iranians and Kurds with his chemical weapons. You know that Saddam had begun one nuclear program, using uranium from Africa. That program was slowed when Israeli fighter jets destroyed his nuclear facility in 1986. Saddam had ignored 12 years of United Nations resolutions calling for him to destroy all of the equipment and materials connected with his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and to present evidence to the UN that he had done so. In 1998 Saddam ended all inspections in Iraq. During the very time that terrorist attacks against the United States were reaching a new peak, and during this time you have no way of figuring out what Saddam is up to within his own borders. You know that Saddam hates the United States and has a particular hatred for your father, the first President Bush. You firmly believe that if Saddam managed to develop a nuclear device, he could, in all probability, make that device available to a terrorist organization. You also know that our security efforts at our borders and ports would be completely ineffective in detecting and stopping a nuclear device from entering this country. So, what do you do? With that information can you really afford to sit back and just watch Saddam? Can Saddam be watched that closely? Could Saddam be watched closely enough to insure that he would not place either chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of any terrorist group? This man, Saddam Hussein, was absolutely refusing to abide by any of the 17 UN resolutions. The burden of proof had been on Saddam. Prove that you have destroyed your weapons. Show us how you did it. Show us where you did it. Give us the documentation. Show us that those weapons and those weapons systems are gone and we'll leave you alone. But Saddam refused. You're the president here, and you have two possible screw-ups you can commit. You can attack Saddam and then fail to find those weapons of mass destruction. Or, you can give Saddam more time and then try to explain to the American people why a nuclear device was detonated in the center of Chicago, or why thousands were killed when a poison gas was spread throughout the New York Subway system. Which mistake do you want? Which screw-up do you want to explain to the American people? Do you really want to try to explain to the American people that after Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998 that you thought he went on and did just exactly what the UN had demanded of him, and then didn't tell anybody? Sometimes there are no really good choices. Sometimes you have to chose between two options on the basis of which one would lead to the worst consequences, not necessarily the best result. True leaders can make those decisions. Demagogues cannot. --N. Boortz --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-21-03, 07:57 PM (EST) 43. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" But to get back to Mick Mahmoud and what Jubal told him. This is not a change of heart for Heinlein. First, what a character in a book says is not necessarily a lecture from the author on Absolute Truth, but is rather what that character would have said under the circumstances. Secondly, there may well be a baby in all that bathwater. Jubal is saying that it makes as much sense to throw out an old tradition because it is old than to keep it because it is old. Pull up the roots and the organism dies.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Sep-23-03, 09:33 AM (EST) 48. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" LAST EDITED ON Sep-23-03 AT 09:35 AM (EST) Hi, Mike, That's pretty much exactly what Heinlein said in a letter to me once, and the quote is under the "quotations" section of this web site. Quote: I do not know what you mean when you say you do not agree with me on the VN war. Are you referring to opinions expressed by Oscar of GLORY ROAD? If so, be assured that my fictional characters speak for themselves, not for me--and, in any case, that book was written six years ago. My private opinion of the situation in 1968 I have never expressed publicly. Source: Robert A. Heinlein in Personal communication--letter Contributor: Brooks A. Mick --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-24-03, 03:31 PM (EST) 50. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" I sometimes get the same feedback regarding my own characters. Oh, well. Principles have a way of ameliorating hard and fast rules. Two examples will do, both involving my son-in-law, Basheer. 1. My cousin up the street threw a party and Basheer came. Among the goodies were sausages. "Are these port sausages," he asked? And my cousin said, "Uhh... yeah. Sure." Afterward, Basheer told me that he didn't believe my custom, but that the custom of hospitality and the requirement to show courtesy to your host over-rode the rule about pork-abstinence. IOW: Don't eat pork, but don't be a total ass about it. 2. One year, Ramadan coincided with Thanksgiving (i.e., T-giving fell within the month). So Basheer is over for turkey dinner and my wife announces that all is ready. Basheer points out that the sun has not yet set, and so he and his family cannot eat. My wife comes back with the comment that, as he is more than 60 miles from home, the fasting rule does not apply. Basheer looks surprised that a Roumi would know about the exception, then he grins and says, yes, but it is still better to fast than not. And by the time they have discussed the matter, the sun has set, and we all plopped down to eat.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Suzela Sep-25-03, 10:13 PM (EST) 51. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Mike Flynn, Your son-in-law sounds like a great guy. I absolutely agree with the way he handles the situations, especially as it's how I do it myself. I don't keep strictly kosher though I don't eat pork or most shellfish. I do keep the holidays. My husband is Catholic which makes for great fun on the various holidays. For instance, during Lent, I make sure we have fish (which our boys won't eat) or more often a pasta dish (which they'll gobble up) on Fridays. However, when the Friday falls during Passover when we can't eat pasta, we make potato pancakes. Why not? I had a situation once where Tom and I were invited to a friend's house for Easter which fell during Passover that year. I ate what she cooked without making a fuss, but I made sure not to eat anything with bread or flour or anything not ok during Passover. Sharon, the friend, mindful that it was Passover, had made food like chicken and potatoes and salad which made it easy. There was an ice cream cake for dessert; I ate some of the ice cream, but left the cake. Sharon's mother started on me, "The cake is good. Why aren't you eating the cake?" "I don't care for it today, thanks." "Eat the cake." "No, thank you, I really can't." "I don't see why; it's good." Finally Sharon rescued me: "Mom, she can't; it's Passover!" "Well, I was brought up to accept someone's hospitalty and I think that being polite is more important than keeping a holiday." Mindful of the woman's grey hairs, I did not retort as I wanted to that I was brought up not to look at someone else's plate! Friends that are vegetarians do very much the same thing: eat what can be eaten, leave the rest, don't make a fuss. Those are the friends who get asked back, too! Suze   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Sep-26-03, 10:39 AM (EST) 53. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Suze: Sounds like you have the entire question of dietary restrictions under control - and in a very tasteful (no pun) manner. laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-26-03, 01:04 PM (EST) 55. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Which leads to the next question regarding Mike Mahmoud. To what extent are dietary restrictions "religion"? We read: "The Divine Law of ... is commonly divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral precepts. The civil legislation regulated the relations of the people of God among themselves and with their neighbours; the ceremonial regulated matters of religion and the worship of God; the moral was a Divine code of ethics." Some might say that the three categories form a hierarchy. That is, "civil" commandments on not mixing different fibers in cloth, or using smooth round stones for personal cleanliness are as a group less central than the "ceremonial" requirements of worship, which in turn are less central than the "moral" commandments. Thus, in the gospels, one reads that the heavenly reward is achieved by those who feed the hungry and clothe the naked; not by those who eat or do not eat certain foods, or say the proper prayers in the proper way. Thus, too, the way most woo-woos go off the beam. They elevate the categories and treat civil commandments with the same weight as moral ones. Reflexively anti-religious folk do precisely the same, except they do so in a satirical manner. E.g., by a naive literal reading of commandments to not mix different fibers in the same cloth, most of modern clothing would be unclean. + + + My boss eats rice for Passover. His family is Sephardic.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Laddi Sep-26-03, 01:45 PM (EST) 56. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Mike F: Aree totally - that some of the nit packing really turns me off - it just doesn't sound very godly for a supreme being to concern himself with such trivia. Most of hte moral imperatives are r eally survival lessons - of course thou shalt not kill, etc. (barring war, of course, and in the U. s today barring state-sanctioned killings). laddi   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Sep-28-03, 03:51 PM (EST) 57. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" >Mike F: > >thou shalt not kill, etc. >(barring war, of course, and >in the U. s today >barring state-sanctioned killings). > >laddi To be fair: the commandment in the original is not to commit murder, that being a different word than "kill." Moral history seems to show a progression in avoidance of any killing, so that today there are those repulsed by the execution of criminals, and even those who are not repulsed feel compelled to execute them in the most humane manner. It should be noted that this progression can be seen in a particular culture, not in all cultures.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Sep-28-03, 06:12 PM (EST) 58. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Mike, laddi, Indeed, lawful execution is not murder and is not proscribed by the commandment. It has been mistranslated. What does that say for "literal interpretation?" --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Oct-02-03, 04:00 PM (EST) 60. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" >What does that say for "literal >interpretation?" > >--Al "If you take Scriptures literally, you cannot take them seriously; and to take them seriously, you mustn’t take them literally.” -- Fr. McGinnity in "3rd Corinthians" (Analog SF, June 2003)   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

SailFree Oct-03-03, 05:38 PM (EST) 61. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Mike, Makes sense to me. --Al   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Suzela Oct-03-03, 11:42 PM (EST) 62. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi, Mike Flynn, I used to keep Passover much more strictly, but I do rice now. My great-uncle always said we were part Sephardic, we were poets and writers and dreamers (my grandfather always said Uncle Mac drank!) But I just say, "We're part-Sephard; the part that eats rice for Passover!" I have also given up on the don't eat corn or corn syrup rule. That allows me to gobble up Easter candy. Seriously, while I think it's fine to keep up traditions, I think it's stupid to split hairs. That's what I think is going on with a lot of the dietary restrictions. As corn was not even known in the desert of Moses' time, why can't I eat corn? The answer I got was that the ground corn could possibly be confused with flour and that someone could then eat the flour thinking he was eating corn meal. See? Now, that's stupid. God didn't give me brains to follow stupid rules. And as I said to the rabbi's wife recently, "In my 46 years of existence, I have not once seethed a kid in the milk of its mother. Not even once." But I have had the occasional cheese steak, I must admit. I don't mix milk and meat that often; I rarely slap cheese on meat more because I don't need the extra fat and calories than for any other reason, but I think the whole different dishes, etc. is nonsense, so I don't follow it. And the whole splitting of hairs over what constititues work on the Sabbath has resulted in it being more work for observant women, not as day of rest. Ok, you can't turn on the stove as that's the equivalent of building a fire. So, you leave the stove on low, put the food on simmer, hope it doesn't burn, hope it gets done on time, hope a child doesn't turn it up thereby putting the family in danger of a fire because it can't be turned down again...c'mon!! Use the brains God gave you, people, otherwise you insult Him! Ok, I'm putting the soapbox away now... Suze   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Willis Oct-04-03, 10:31 AM (EST) 63. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Hi Suzela, As Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Meaning, of course, that God did not make a Sabbath day to impose a restriction on him, but to allow him to rest. Remember, that's "allow" not "make". Again, as Jesus said to the religious leaders of His day, "You have made the Word of God of no effect because of your traditions". Willis   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike Flynn Oct-14-03, 05:21 PM (EST) 64. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" I like the part where if you string a cord from lampost to lampost, you create a virtual house out of an entire neighborhood, so that you can do things on sabbath that you normally couldn't. All part of a legalistic literalism opposed to the spirit. But that goes back to the old split among the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Christian messianists. It's what Paul was talking about when he said justification was by faith (i.e., believing that the rabbi Jesus had found the best way to live), not by following the minutiae of hundreds of laws.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Suzela Oct-14-03, 10:34 PM (EST) 65. "RE: Heinlein Again Ahead of His Time?" Mike Flynn, There's a term for that and it is escaping me at the moment, but it tickles me too. There's a reason I am a Reform (not REFORMED) Jew even though I've been attending a Conservative Synagogue. However, I have to tell you from what I've read, Paul, for all he used to be Saul, was not considered a scholar by his comtemporaries, a reason he was so against Pharisaic Judism. They dissed him! He got back at them, though, didn't he? Suze Willis, Exodus 35: And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day. I can't see any options or wiggle room there. the Sabbath is a holy day, the Lord's day. My problem is with the rabbis who equate turning on a stove (easy) with building a fire (not so easy). But I don't know that Jesus had the authority to put aside the laws that his Dad had decreed. Suze   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove	Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Rate this topic (1=skip it, 10=must read)? [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ]

Select another forum Lobby Quotable Heinlein (Conference)   |--General Discussion (Public)   |--Trivia Forum (Public)   |--Religion (Public)   |--Military Forum (Public)   |--Literary Forum (Public)   |--Author Discussion (Public)   |--Political Discussion (Public)   |--Character Discussion (Public)   |--Book Reviews (Public)   |--Movie Reviews (Public)   |--Visitor Bios (Public)   |--Suggestion Box (Public)   |--Quotable Heinlein Contributors Forum (Public)

Powered by DCF2000 © 1997-2000 by DCScripts. All rights reserved.