waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
maxwell c muir writes:     Just a quick question. If Mary was Immaculately concieved, so she    could be a pure vessel, does this mean that she was without sin    and, therefore, the perfect (meaning sinless) female human being?    Is this why she is held so highly in the Catholic Church despite    it's basically patriarchical structure?  She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin, but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.  She is regarded so highly because of her special relationship to God, and everything that flows from that relationship.  The Catholic Church sees her as the new Eve.  (The Fathers in the early Church use this particular figure a lot.)
In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu> dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes: >In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>, > >					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference >between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e. >regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an >absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance? >     They sound like one and the same to me.  >                                       Pixie > > >     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow >it blindly?    	Why do we follow God so blindly?  Have you ever asked a physically blind person why he or she follows a seeing eye dog? The answer is quite simple--the dog can see, and the blind person cannot.  	I acknowledge, as a Christian, that I am blind.  I see, but I see  illusions as well as reality.  (Watched TV lately?) I hear, but I hear lies as well as truth.  (Listen to your  radio or read a newspaper.)  Remember, all that tastes well is not healthy.  So, I rely one the one who can see, hear, and taste everything, and knows what is real, and what is not. That is God.  	Of course, you may ask, if I cannot trust my own senses, how do I know whether what I see and hear about God is truth or a lie.  That is why we need faith to be saved.  We must force ourselves to believe that God knows the truth, and loves us enough to share it with us, even when it defies what we think we know.  Why would He have created us if He did not love us  enough to help us through this world?  	I also do trust my experiences to some extent.  When I do things that defy the seeming logic of my experience,  because it is what my Father commands me to do, and I see the results in the long term, I find that He has led me in the proper direction, even though it did not feel right at the time.  This is where our works as Christians are important:  As exercises of the body make the body strong, excercises of faith make the faith strong.    	As for you, no one can "convert" you.  You must choose to follow God of your own will, if you are ever to follow Him.  All we as Christians wish to do is share with you the love we have received from God.  If you reject that, we have to accept your decision, although we always keep the offer open to you.  If you really want to find out why we believe what we believe, I can only suggest you try praying for faith, reading the Bible, and asking Christians about their experiences personally.  Then you may grow to understand why we believe what we do, in defiance of the logic of this world.  	May the Lord bring peace to you,
Hi,  I am new to this newsgroup, and also fairly new to christianity. I was raised as a Unitarian and have spent the better part of my life as an agnostic, but recently I have developed the firm conviction that the Christian message is correct and I have accepted Jesus into my life. I am happy, but I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological works intended for a lay person?  I have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference between the various Protestant denominations.  Thanks for reading my post.   Sincerely,  Steve Hoskins
In article <May.12.04.26.40.1993.9887@athos.rutgers.edu> u9245669@athmail1.cause way.qub.ac.uk writes (single angle brackets):  >> Jesus is talking with the >>apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can  >>come Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did  >>not recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was referi ng  >>to John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation. > >This was a popular belief in the Judaism of Jesus` time, that Elijah >would return again (as he had been taken in to heaven in a chariot and >did not actually die).  However Jesus was referring to John the >Baptist not in the sense that Elijah was reincarnated as John >(remember Elijah didn`t die) but that John was a similar prophet to >Elijah. >  There is no question of similarity in Jesus indication about John. The passage in Matthew is very direct.  Where Luke (1:17) reports the angel Gabriel prophesying that John will go before Christ "in the  power and spirit of Elias", In Matthew 11: 14, Jesus himself says of John,        "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who     was to come".  It is interesting that Jesus prepended the words, "If you care to accept it", as if to say that the implications of this truth, namely of rein- carnation, I will not force on you, but for those who can accept it, here it is.  A Jewish poster to other newsgroups on Jewish esotericism and other topics has outlined the esoteric, cabbalistic Jewish teaching of of reincarnation and Karma, a teaching that is little known among Jews today, but which is apparently widespread enough in Israel that Hannah Hurnard ("Hinds Feet on High Places") was told about it by a Rabbi she was trying to convert back in the 1940s as a missionary in Palestine. Thus there may well have been a small number of Jews who knew about this, whereas the large number of people did not.  The statement of Jesus about  John, the greatest human personality in the New Testament, is guarded but nevertheless quite direct.  Again, the subject of reincarnation, one way or another, is not a subject of the New Testament, nor is the fate in general of the human being between death and the last judgement.  But there are  occasional indications that point to it.  As for the "popular belief" that Elijah would come again, it was more than  a popular belief, as Jesus confirms it in more than one place, and he never  corrected those who were expecting Elijah --  for example, those who thought  that Jesus himself be he.
Ok, let me see if I can get all this out concisely.  I am on an information gathering venture regarding the various expressions of Christianity/churches there are.           My husband and I come from very different, but completely Christian backgrounds.  I was a Lutheran when I met him and he was a born and raised Church of Christ member.  At first I agreed with a lot of what the C of C was about, I wanted to move from the liturgical based Lutheran church to something a little more Biblical based. However over the last year, I've been regretting changing to the Church of Christ for a number of reasons - for one thing I am not a fundamentalist and believe that a few things in the Bible are socio-cultural in nature and don't relate to the Christian doctrine. One of my sorest spots is the role of women.  I believe that through Mary and other women, Chris validated women as worthy disciples - but in the C of C the writings of Paul are taken without exception and I am told that I am not an equal partner in my marriage but the lesser member, I am to submit to my husband in all things (if I hear that verse one more time....) and I am not to take an active role in anything which might be construed as putting me in authority over men (ie leading prayers, conducting Bible studies etc).   The last straw was when the Elders at our church came down on one of our college groups because it was all-women and they wanted a man to lead the study. Also my husband and I really resent the way everyone at our church feels that if you aren't a conservative republican - you aren't a REAL Christian (I got told that nobody who voted for Clinton should call themselves a Christian).  Hence we are subjected during the service to long prayers calling for things we flatly dont agree with.  We are also don't agree with the C of C's dread of any new "movement" being led by the young people.  So, we have been church hunting with NO success.  I want a reasonably biblical based church where women are viewed as whole people no matter what their calling ( C of C really looked down on career women). Christopher is looking for a church with deeply rooted religious convictions, with adult baptism and a church where the members still bring their Bibles to service.  We are so confused here and we're drifting around trying to find a place where we both feel loved and can express our faith honestly and without reservation.  If anyone can point us in a direction we'd be thrilled! I'm afraid that it will be very hard for me to go back to C of C and even harder for me to stay churchless for long.  any responses would be welcome   the diel family
This has troubled me for a long time and needs to be dealt with.  From a long article Available through an individual on this newsgroup.  About scripture being against homosexuality: ------------------------------------------ When we  are less homophobic we will see that what we know as gay and lesbian  people, engaging in loving, voluntary erotic relations with each other, aren't  even mentioned. [in the Bible, tk] ------------------------------------------  This frightens me (not in the homophobic sense, but intellectually), especially because it was written by someone from a homosexual church.  So, if my interpretation is different than theirs, I am homophobic!  This can't be right. Disagreement in interpretation of the Bible and/or rejection of homosexual acts is not tantamount of homophobia.
In article <May.5.02.53.08.1993.28877@athos.rutgers.edu> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes: >	Since Mary was free from 'original sin' she  >	did not exactly die: 'at the end of her life' >	(as the dogmatic prounouncement says) she  >	was assumed into heaven.     The dogma of the Assumption does not state whether or not Mary died a physical death before being taken into Heaven.  Catholics are free to believe what they wish, whether it be that she was taken still alive, or after having died.  I lean somewhat toward the latter myself.
Praise God!  I'm writing everyone to inform you that I have been accepted to the Doctor of Psychology program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.  I've been working long and hard to try to get in there and have said many hours of prayer.  I'm very excited for this opportunity, but also very nervous about it.  I'd appreciate the prayers of the readers of this group for my preparation for school this summer and for my career as a graduate student.  I'd also appreciate any information any of the readers of this group might have  about Fuller, Pasadena, or California in general, like good places to have fun, good churches to check out, or anything else that might be good for me to know.  Also, if anyone knows of any foundations that  might have funding or scholarship money available, please let me know! Of course, if you wish to make a personal contribution.....:)  The contract for my current job is over at the end of April.  I'll be taking a couple classes at UT this summer and then I'll be moving to Pasadena.  Hopefully, I'll be able to get net.access next fall, although Fuller doesn't have it itself.  I've enjoyed the interesting discussions and I commend everyone for their earnest search to please God.  Thanks to our moderator for providing such a wonderful service and in doing a great job of running this news group.  May God bless you all.  Vaya con Dios, mi amigas y amigos.  Paul   =============================================================================== Paul Conditt		Internet: conditt@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu Applied Research	Phone:	  (512) 835-3422   FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259   Laboratories		Fedex:	  10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423 University of Texas	Postal:	  P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029 Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live
I have some articles available on the Church and gay people, from a pro-gay viewpoint, which might interest some of the people  participating in this thread.  Please email me if you would like to have me send them to you (warning, about 70k worth of material. Make sure you have mailbox and/or disk space available.)  There are no short answers to the questions we've been seeing here ("how do you explain these verses?", "How do you justify your actions?") If you've been asking and you really want an idea of the other people's thinking, I encourage you to do some serious reading.   --
>>"We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the >>life of the world to come."  - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  >I always took the 'resurrection' in this statement to mean the >resurrection of the soul, but I guess resurrection does strictly mean >the raising of the physical body.  I have some questions on this point:  The next time you go to church, you can check the better creed, that is, the Apostles' Creed.  It says: "the resurrection of the body."  Should have learned that on the first go around.  But what's a body without  a little bit a'soul?   >1.  I always thought that Christians believe the descent into hell was  >pretty much immediate, and that there are people burning in hell right >now. Where will my "soul"  >(which, by the way, I don't believe in) exist until that time?  At the risk of offending everybody, I will interject the 13th century point of view.  Christ descended immediately into the bosom of Abraham to set captives captive.  He preached to the saved for three days before drawing them with Him back to this earth.  I'm no expert on this part, but Matthew (27:52-53) says about the death of Jesus: "tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.  And coming forth from the tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many."  (NAB)  Regarding the hell of the damned, of which you speak, Christ did not see it (Ps 16:10, Acts 2:27), although it saw Him (cf. Is 45:2).    Concerning the abodes of the dead, I don't want to subject my brethren to further anguish, so I will direct you to contact me through e-mail if you are genuinely concerned.   >2.  Will the new body I will have be created out of the same atoms  >that my body now is made of, or will it be built from scratch?   Your new body might be something like Adam's before his fateful encounter with the Just One (Acts 7:52, CR trans. Vulgate): filled with infused knowledge, absent of concupiscence, and immortal.  It would probably be a little glorified, too.  >3.  Since I will have a physical body, I assume it will need a physical >place to exist in -- where is this hell?  In the center of the earth? >Do you think we could find it if we dig?  I wouldn't recommend it.  It's really hot down at the center of the earth! You know, the normal geothermal gradient, and all that.    Regards.  --  boundary, the catechist
In article <May.11.02.37.28.1993.28163@athos.rutgers.edu> dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:  >4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word, >   my calling would be lost forever.  God's Word would command the people >   never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet.  My >   bridges would be burnt forever.  Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but >   I could never again be a prophet of God.  Though there is a command in the law not to heed to one who prophecies  falsely, it is still possible for the one who has prophecied falsely to prophecy truely again.  Take, for example the story in Kings about the man of God from Judah who came to israel and prophecied against a king. The Lord had commanded him to not eat or drink till he returned home. Another prophet wanted this man of God to stay in his house, so he prophecied falsely that the Lord wanted the man of God to stay in his  house.  While they ate and drank in his house, the Lord gave the prophet who lied a word that the man of God would die from breaking the word of the Lord.  It came to pass.
In article <May.12.04.27.23.1993.9926@athos.rutgers.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes: >Has anyone read this important book?  If so, what are your feelings about it? >
First, I would like to thank all who sent me their opinions on the matter at hand.  All advice was taken to heart, if not directly used.  My friend found out about the matter quite accidently.  After reading some of my mail, I quit from the mail reader & went about my business.  I must have trashed my mail improperly, because he got on the same terminal the next day & saw my old messages.  He thought they were responses to a post he placed in alt.atheism earlier that week, so he read some of them before realizing that they were for me.  I got a message from him the next day; he apologized for reading my mail & said that he did not want to appear to be a snoop.  He said that he would be willing to talk to me about his views & didn't mind doing so, especially with a friend.  So we did.  I neither changed his mind nor did he change mine, as that was not the point.  Now he knows where I'm coming from & now I know where he's coming from.  And all that I can do is pray for him, as I've always done.  I believe the reason that he & I "click" instead of "bash" heads is because I see Christianity as a tool for revolution, & not a tool for maintaining the status quo.  To be quite blunt, I have more of a reason to reject God than he does just by the fact that I am an African-American female.  Christianity & religion have been used as tools to separate my people from the true knowledge of our history & the wealth of our contributions to the world society.  The "kitchen of heaven" was all we had to look forward to during the slave days, & this mentality & second-class status still exists today.  I, too, have rejected an aspect of Christianity----that of the estabished church.  Too much hypocricy exists behind the walls of "God's house" beginning with the images of a white Jesus to that of the members:  praise God on Sunday & raise hell beginning Monday.  God-willing, I will find a church home where I can feel comfortable & at-home, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Without quoting at length from the preceeding post, I'd just like to say that I find it a much more appropriate way of dealing with issues like the Holocaust and Bosnia that asserting that "God is punishing them."  The activity of God is always _redemptive_, which means "restoring what has been lost, broken, or distorted."  So, God does not _will_ the brokenness, lostness, distortion, genocide, poverty, etc, but is nonetheless capable, willing, and active to restore, heal, mend, and redeeem.
The initiations ceremony for Knights ous is almost as secretive as that for the Mafia.  What are the phases of initation and why the secretiveness?
[This is a response to a request for a Biblical reference about Satan being a fallen angel.  --clh]  Isaiah 14:12
Q. Should teenagers have the freedom to choose what church they go to?  My friends teenage kids do not like to go to church. If left up to them they would sleep, but that's not an option. They complain that they have no friends that go there, yet don't attempt to make friends. They mention not respecting their Sunday school teacher, and usually find a way to miss Sunday school but do make it to the church service, (after their parents are thoroughly disgusted) I might add. A never ending battle? It can just ruin your whole day if you let it.
(Marty Helgesen) writes:     When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention,    the Church may investigate it.  If the investigation indicates a    likelihood that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God,    it will be approved.  That means that it can be preached in the    Church.  However, it is still true that no one is required to    believe that it came from God.  A Catholic is free to deny the    authenticity of even the most well attested and strongly approved    private revelations, such as those at Fatima and Lourdes.  (I    suspect that few if any Catholics do reject Fatima and Lourdes, but    if any do their rejection of them does not mean they are not    orthodox Catholics in good standing.)  It may be a bit much to say that a Catholic is free to deny what happened at Fatima.  That's a bit strong, it is sort of like saying that a Catholic is free to deny that Hong Kong exists.  What a Catholic *is* free to do is to deny the truth of Fatima, without being called a heretic.  You can be labeled other things for such an offense, but not a heretic.  Theologians make a basic distinction as far as the degree of assent one must give to events like Fatima and Lourdes.  Things revealed by God through Jesus Christ or His Apostles must be given the assent due to a revelation of God: total and unswerving.  Fatima and Lourdes demand our assent as much as any other well-attested event in human history.  Perhaps a bit more, given the approval of the Church.  "Approval" of an apparition by the Church principally means that whatever happened was in harmony with the Catholic Faith.  I personally think of private revelations as our Lord's way of telling us what to do at particular periods in history.  He gave us all the doctrines, etc., 2000 years ago, but we can always use some help in knowing how exactly to apply what He gave us.  Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart was a result of a series of apparitions to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, for example.  The problem at the time was extreme moral rigorism that was turning our Lord into someone without a heart.
In article <May.13.02.30.39.1993.1545@geneva.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:  >[...]  i believe that the one >important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament >passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific >evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_ >rather than completely learned.  this means that to a certain extent >-- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel [...]  But one of the most basic concepts of Christian morality is that we all have defective appetites due to original sin.  Not just homosexuals, but everybody.  Thus we are not entitled to indulge in whatever behavior our bodies want us to.  I think we need to keep clear the distinction between homosexual _behavior_ (which is wrong) and homosexual _orientation_ (which is not a sin, merely a misfortune).  [Please: NO EMAIL REPLIES.  Respond in this public forum.]