waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.9.05.39.19.1993.27401@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:  >>The so-called Creed of Athanasius, however, has always been a Western >>creed, and has always had the filioque.  The Orthodox have said that >>they accept all that it says, with the exception of the filioque, but >>it is not "in use." ... >	Of course the Orthodox did not delete the Filioque from the Nicene >Creed (it wasn't there to begin with), but they certainly did from the >Athanasian Creed, which did have it from the beginning.  The so-called Athanasian Creed has never been a recognized standard of faith  in the Orthodox Church. It was introduced (without the Filioque) in certain  service-books in the 17th and 18th centuries at a time when there was a  strong Western influence on Orhtodoxy.
As our local.religion.christian BBS group seems moribund, I'm posting here.  On one of the Sundays just before Easter I went to church.  The sermon was based on a story in the Book of Joshua.  (The one about Joshua sending out spies to the land he was planning to take)  What I particularly remember, because of having heard part of a CBC radio documentary on Bosnia, was that the Rahab (the woman who sheltered the spies) said that the people were "melting in fear."  What with having heard that CBC radio documentary and knowing that the Muslims in Bosnia were losing the war, I felt uncomfortable.  After all, the Serbs are driving non-Christians out.  On the other hand, ministers do say that the Bible is opposed to the values held by our secular society.  Anyhow members of that church are involved in out-of-country missionary work.  Also, the pastor has talked of spiritual warfare and of bringing Christ to the nonreligious people of our area.  The next Sunday, the sermon was about Joshua 6 (where the Israelites take Jericho and then proceed to massacre everybody there --- except for Rahab, who had sheltered the spies).  With those reports about Bosnia in my mind, I felt uncomfortable about the minister saying that the massacre (the one in Joshua) was right.  But what really bothered me was that, if I was going to try taking Christianity seriously, I shouldn't be so troubled about the reports of "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia.  Certainly, my sympathies shouldn't be with the Moslims. Considering that the Bosnian Muslims are descendants of Christians who, under Turkish rule, converted to Islam could the Serbs be doing God's work?
Frank, I got your mailing on early historical references to Christianity. I'd like to respond, but I lost your address.  Please mail me.
In article <Apr.20.03.01.44.1993.3772@geneva.rutgers.edu>, s0612596@let.rug.nl (M.M. Zwart) writes... >I'm writing a paper on the role of the catholic church in Poland after 1989.  >church concerning the abortion-law, religious education at schools,   There was an article on clari.news.religion in the last few days about a Polish tribunal decision. It said that crucifixes and religious classes in public schools were okay; and that children who did not want to take religion class could not be forced to take an ethics class as a substitute.
In article <May.12.04.27.47.1993.9935@athos.rutgers.edu> gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM writes:  >Let me say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is >central to Christianity. If you personally believe that Jesus Christ >died for you, you are a part of the Christian body of believers.  >We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual, >we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about >Jesus Christ.  >Are you working together with other Christians to spread the Gospel?  Let me salute Gary Chin for speaking the gospel which is our source of life.  Any who will follow his example, and accept the priorities Christ commands of us, that the weightier matters of the law are justice and mercy and good faith, is my brother or sister in Christ, and I will attend to such a person with humility and charity.  We may not, in the end, agree -- siblings often don't -- but we can at least talk.
Some years ago -- possibly as many as five -- there was a discussion on numerology.  (That's where you assign numeric values to letters and then add up the letters in words, in an effort to prove something or another.  I can never make any sense of how it's supposed to work or what it's supposed to prove.)  Somebody posted a long article about numerology in the Bible, saying things like "this proves the intricate planning of the Scriptures, else these patterns would not appear".  Then there was a brilliant followup, which was about numerology in all the other numerology posts.  Stuff like "The word `numerology' adds up to 28, and the word appears 28 times in the posting!  Such elegant planning! Further, the word `truth' ALSO adds up to 28; the writer is using these numerological clues to show us that we reach truth via numerology!" (These examples are made up by me just as examples.)  I really liked that reply, because it did such an excellent job of showing that these patterns can be found in just about anything.  However, I did not save a copy of it.  I do not remember the author.  I'm only 90% sure that it was posted to this newsgroup.  BUT, on the off chance that somebody remembers it and saved it, or that the author is reading here, I wanted to know if anyone could send me a copy.  (I think it should be made into an FAQ, if we can find it.)
Aside to the moderator:  In article <May.13.02.30.00.1993.1520@geneva.rutgers.edu> Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry) writes:  ><see below...>  I won't quote any of it, but there are several errors in the article. Not things that are just differences of opinion, but the writer just plain has his facts confused.  For example, Kip McKean was *asked* to come to the Lexington church by the leaders there. He brought no team. He actually had been in Charleston, IL up to that point. He had many friends, even leaders in Gainesville, telling him not to go, because people in the Northeast weren't "open" and he'd be wasting his time and talents. Really!! (This fact was a kind of "inside joke" at one point after the church in Boston took off so well... Not open, indeed!) ;-)  I could take it on point by point, but I am not in a position to know one way or the other about some things in the article. I just wanted to point out that it contains misinformation.  Mark
--> Note: Reply to a message in soc.religion.christian.  EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL wrote in a message to All:  > Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the > Bible a closed book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go > around saying "God told me this" and "Jesus told me that"?   > Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies > are nothing new but rather an inspired translation of > scripture.  Is it right to call that prophecy?  Misleading?   Hi, You might want to read Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur.  In it he discussed exactly this queation, amongst others.  In my own words, VERY simplified, his position is basically that one must decide, what is the most important - experience or Scripture?  People tend to say Scripture, without living according to that.  Their own feeling/prophecy/etc tends to be put across without testing in the light of Scripture.  There's a lot more than this, really worthwhile to read whether you're Charismatic or not.  Groetnis (=cheers)  Deon  --- timEd/B8
Desiree Bradley (Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:  <. . ..  : The next Sunday, the sermon was about Joshua 6 (where the Israelites : take Jericho and then proceed to massacre everybody there --- except : for Rahab, who had sheltered the spies).  With those reports about : Bosnia in my mind, I felt uncomfortable about the minister saying that : the massacre (the one in Joshua) was right.  But what really bothered : me was that, if I was going to try taking Christianity seriously, I : shouldn't be so troubled about the reports of "ethnic cleansing" in : Bosnia.  Certainly, my sympathies shouldn't be with the Moslims. : Considering that the Bosnian Muslims are descendants of Christians : who, under Turkish rule, converted to Islam could the Serbs be doing : God's work?  Perhaps it would be useful to ask whether those doing the ethnic cleansing could be said to be loving those they are killing in the very act of killing.  Does it reflect the attitude of God, who sends rain to both the just and the unjust?  If not, then Christians should be uncomfortable with it.  Jesus gave his followers the law of love to follow and it is by exhibiting this that disciples will be known.  Doctrinal (or political) correctness is not the standard, so I don't see why Christians should be moved against the Serbs because their ancestors converted from Christianity to Islam.  It seems to me that as a Christian you _should_ be troubled by the ethnic cleansing. --
In article <May.7.01.07.10.1993.13776@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) writes: >In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes: >>Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that >>   unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?  Interesting question, esp since I remember *wishing* with all my heart that this *were* true so that I wouldn't have to be a  "good Christian" anymore.  "Christianity" was terribly hard, the only reward was Heaven and (maybe, sometimes, if I was really good) acceptance; I wanted a way out.  >If you knew this "beyond all doubt", then you would be foolish to be >a disciple of a man who claimed it did exist. The truth is, you can >not be Jesus' disciple and disagree with him at the same time, not >allowing him to be your "Lord".  What Jesus has done for me since I found Him (some 6 months ago)  I do not want to lose.  Period.    That said, I originally interpreted the What-If as "if Christ never mentioned Sheol and weeping and gnashing of teeth, if Christ preached that those who did not follow him died and stayed dead and at that point forever ceased to exist...."  >>....Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the >>One Who made us all.  I follow Christ because it's a great way >>to LIVE life.  And I could care less what really happens after >>I die.  ..... > >So is being a Buddhist a great way to live life. I'm not converting, >though.  I believe that we can only be complete through Christ.  Do you think that Buddhists can also be complete?  -jen  --
In a prior article, lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes: > > Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do) > as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James > in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'  If you agree that good works have a role somewhere, you will  generally find yourself in one of two camps:      (1) Faith + Works --> Salvation or (2) Faith --> Salvation + Works  Either (1) works are required for salvation, or (2) faith will  inevitably result in good works.   I am also of the opinion that salvation is by faith alone, based on Ephesians 2 and Romans 3:21-31.  I also conclude that James 2, when  read in context, is teaching bullet (2) above. When James speaks of  justification, I would claim that he is not speaking of God declaring the believing sinner innocent in His sight (Paul's use of the word).  Instead he is speaking of the sinner's profession of faith being  "justified" or "proven" by the display of good works. Also according  to James 2, the abscence of such works is evidence for a "dead" or  "useless" faith which fails to save.  James 2 is not a problem for the doctrine of salvation by faith if it is teaching (2).  Works would have their place, not as merit toward  salvation, but as evidence of true faith.   Regards,  --- Dave Weaver               | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com|  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)  [There are of course a number of other possibilities.  The Reformers believed    salvation --> faith --> works  Some of us suspect that the three things are tied up together in such a way that no diagram of this form can do it justice.
|JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                                 |Joe Moore writes:                                                      |                                                                       | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at            | > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.     | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the        | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed        | > the case for the doctrine.                                          |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,         |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the       |Pope.                                                                  |                                                                       | Yours,                                                                | James Kiefer  I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions. She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were living in an abandoned prison cell of some sort.  She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about  what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.   For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since  Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception". So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her way to the priest...  The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then. But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.  (Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little water flowed but after several years there is more water  flowing.)
In article <May.3.05.01.53.1993.9964@athos.rutgers.edu>, a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) says: >A.Faris <<Posting deleted.  The moderator replies: >[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin >Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin >Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed >body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal >statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some >before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a >Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical >support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura". >That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of >Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little >Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe >that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also >that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet >another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us >the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]  That is generally accuate, but contains one serious error.  We Catholics do believe that God's revealed truth that is not explicitly recorded in the Bible can be and is passed on through the Tradition of the Church. It should be noted that the Tradition of the Church, otherwise known as Sacred Tradition, is not the same as ordinary human traditions. However, we do not believe that additional truth will be revealed to the Church.  Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine, ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  Nothing new can be added.  Theologians study this revelation and can draw out implications that were not recognized previously, so that the Council of Nicea could define statements about the theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation that were not explicitly stated in the Bible and had been disputed before the council, but there was no new revelation at Nicea or at any subsequent council.  Cardinal Newman's _An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_, written while he was still an Anglican, is an excellent discussion of of this point.  It was recently reprinted as a Doubleday Image Books paperback with some related shorter works under the title _Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine_. ------- Marty Helgesen Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) suggests different levels of acceptance of homosexuality: >  > 1) Regard homosexual orientation as a sin (or evil, whatever) > 2) Regard homosexual behaviour as a sin, but accept orientation > (though presumably orientation is unfortunate) and dislike people who > indulge > 3) As 2, but "love the sinner" > 4) Accept homosexuality altogether.  I would add 4': our churches should accept homosexual orientation but hold all people to certain standards of sexual behavior.  Promiscuity, abuse of power relationships, harrassment, compulsivity are equally out of place in the lives of homosexual as of heterosexual people.  Of course, this would bring up the dread shibboleth of homosexual marriage, and we couldn't have that! :-)
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:  >In article <Mar.17.02.04.45.1993.23612@athos.rutgers.edu> jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher) writes:  >|There is a book provided by the SDA which is entitled "The Seventh Day >|Adventist Church believes", or something like that.   >The book is called "27 basic fundamental beliefs" or something very close to  >that.  the number *IS* 27, not 30.  I have a copy at home (i'm away at  >school.)  Actually the book is called "Seventh Day Adventists believe..."  And there are 27 basica beliefs.  I believe it is printed by the Reveiew and Herald Publishing Association.  --  "Competition is the law of the jungle.  Cooperation is the law of civilization." -- Eldridge Cleaver
I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in 1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and repression."   My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as automatically above reproach.
In article <Apr.16.23.18.07.1993.1879@geneva.rutgers.edu> phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: >But what if the geologists are wrong and these people are warning of a >non-existent danger?  Analogies can only push an argument so far (on both >sides).  Both Melinda's and yours assume the premises used to set up your >respective analogies are true and thus the correct conclusion will arise. > >The important point to note is the different directions both sides come from. >Christians believe they know the TRUTH and thus believe they have the right >(and duty) to tell the TRUTH to all.   > >Christians can get offended if others do not believe (what is self-evidently >to them) the TRUTH. Non-christians do not believe this is the TRUTH and get >offended at them because they (christians) claim to know the TRUTH.  The analogy does not depend on the premisses being true, because the  question under discussion is not truth but arrogance.   A similar analogy might be a medical doctor who believes that a blood  transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child whose parents are  Jehovah's Witnesses and so have conscientious objections to blood  transfusion. The doctor's efforts to persuade them to agree to a blood  transfusion could be perceived to be arrogant in precisely the same way as  Christians could be perceived to be arrogant.  The truth or otherwise of the belief that a blood transfusion is necessary  to save the life of the child is irrelevant here. What matters is that the  doctor BELIEVES it to be true, and could be seen to be trying to foce his  beliefs on the parents, and this could well be perceived as arrogance.
Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again, it is time for me to respond , once again, and say that this book is junk.  It is nothing more that an anti-Catholic tract of the sort published ever since the there were protestants.  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.
The two historic facts that I think the most important are these:  (1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact.  (2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so (it would have discredited the Christians).