waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.8.01.01.06.1993.28740@athos.rutgers.edu> Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au (ljh) writes:  >"Well, my son, the best advice I can give you is this: Eat a lot of >carrots!" >"Oh, do you really think that will work ?!? And should it be before or >after intercourse?" >"INSTEAD, my son, INSTEAD!" ... >Disclaimer: As a single Catholic I didn't have any business to post this >kind of joke to this group, so if you found it inappropriate [...]  But what was wrong with it?  It won't tempt anyone to any kind of sin, as far as I can tell.  It doesn't belittle anyone.  It does not substitute offensiveness for humor (it's genuinely funny).  We shouldn't assume that _all_ jokes that mention sexuality are "dirty" merely because so many are.  And we should never mistake prudery for spirituality.  It can be the direct opposite -- a symptom of the _lack_ of a healthy perspective on God's creation.
Chuck Petch writes:  >Now it appears that nothing stands in the way of rebuilding and resuming >sacrifices, as the Scriptures indicate will happen in the last days. >Although the Israeli government will give the permission to start, I think >it is the hand of God holding the project until He is ready to let it >happen. Brothers and sisters, the time is at hand. Our redemption is >drawing near. Look up!  How is a scriptural Levitical priesthood resumed?  Are there any Jews who  can legitimately prove their Levite bloodline?
Ann Jackson (ajackson@cs.ubc.ca) wrote on 5 May:  >In article <May 2.09.50.06.1993.11776@geneva.rutgers.edu> >Jim Green writes:  >>Can't someone describe someone's Trinity in simple declarative >>sentences with words that have common meaning?  >The answer to this question appears to be "no".  I would like to submit the following which helped me enormously. If it has already been posted, I apologize.  It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to  explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water. Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor. Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.  And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and an employee in a business.  Thus, it seems clear to me that the essence of God can subsist in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or, depending on one's particular need for Him.
>In article <May.9.05.40.15.1993.27475@athos.rutgers.edu>, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com >(Geno ) writes: >> [4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore, >> babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off >> from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine >> and St. Thomas.  ... >-jeff adams-  Regarding the first paragraph, I would say that I didn't write it. I don't believe that unbaptized babies are put in Hell. I don't even believe in Hell. At least, I don't believe in a fiery place where there will be "gnashing of teeth".
Not to change the subject, but how was Fr. Gobbi allowed at Notre Dame?  Notre Dame is an anti Catholic University.  Was this allowed to show that the crackpots at Notre Dame believe in freedom of speech?  I am glad that they did allow him to speak.
In article <Apr.24.01.09.19.1993.4263@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes: >James Sledd (jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu) wrote: >: Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm... >: > >Are you suggesting that God supports genocide? >Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf? > >Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of >my worship or faith.  You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after reading Deuteronomy chapter 28.
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.      The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.  Romans 16:20
gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:  > Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame > start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience. [deleted]  >  > We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we > die.        I am glad that I am not an atheist.  It seems tragic that some people  choose a meaningless existence.  How terrible to go on living only  because one fears death more than life.  I feel so sorry for Eric and  yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as  further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.      As a Christian I am free to be a human person.  I think, love, choose,  and create.  I will live forever with God.  Christ is not a kind of drug.  Drugs are a replacement for Christ.   Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must  do something to ease the pain.  This is why the most effective  substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual  needs.  Thank you, Eric for your post.  It has helped me to appreciate how much  God has blessed me.  I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled  and abundant life.
In article <Apr.20.03.03.15.1993.3845@geneva.rutgers.edu>, fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser) writes: > [Several people were involved in trying to figure out who first used > the phrase "God-shaped hole".  --clh] >  > "There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us" (or something to that effect) is > generally attributed to Blaise Pascal.  I believe this is a just another of way of expressing the basic truth "All things were created by him and FOR him." (emphasis mine)  Col. 1:16 , Rev. 4:11. If you and I have been created for God, naturally there will be a vacuum if God is not our all and all. In fact, the first chapter of Collosians brings out this status of Christ, that He should have the preeminence. When you life is alligned with Him, and you do His will, then the vacuum is filled.
In article <May.9.05.38.49.1993.27375@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes: [much deleted]  >point today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped  >Osiris in Egypt...) [much deleted]        It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.       First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and there's nothing definitive before the 17th).       Second, worship of Osiris is not, nor has it ever been, a part of Masonic practice (we are strictly non-denominational).  >tangents, never ending tangents,       You said it!  >Rex
Often times (most recently on this list in the last few days) I've heard the passage from revelation:  	"...whoever adds to the sacred words of this book...whoever removes 	 words from this book..."      	 used as an arguement against the deutercanonical books.  	 I feel this is ridiculous for two reasons:  	 1.  They weren't added later by the Catholic Church; they were 		*always* part of what was considered inspired scripture. 		(This has been dealt with in previous postings...no reason 		to repeat the info.)  	2.  It is more likely than not that when St. John (or whomever) wrote 		the book of Revelation WHAT WAS THEN CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE was 		** NOT ** the same thing you and I are holding in our hands!  	If one takes the translation of "this book" in REV 18:22 (or somewhere 	around there) to mean "all of scripture", then all of us are likely 	holding something that is in violation of this command.  	It is impossible to exactly date the scriptures, even the N.T. ones 	(they didn't like to date their letters, I guess).  I really wish I 	had my bible with me right now to get the facts straight, but I believe 	that several of the N.T. letters, chief among them 2 Peter, have their 	most likely date of composition in the early second century A.D. 		Revelation was almost certainly written durin the reign of  	Domition (sp?), A.D. 80-96.  Thus it could be argues that we are all 	in sin if we accept 2 Peter as scripture, since it was "added" to the 	book after the composition of Revelation, when we are told to add  	nothing more.
David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes:  >When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that >Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this >exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.  I don't see how this logically follows.  True enough, Mary received a blessing beyond any granted in all the history of humanity by being privileged to be  the mother of the Savior.  It says nothing about Mary needing to be a "blessed  person" _first_ in order that she might thereby be worthy to bear the Son of  God.  Again, I think the problem is that as humans we can't comprehend how the  sinless Incarnation could spring from sinful human flesh and God's Spirit. Rather than simply accept the gracious miracle of God, we must needs try to dope out a mechanism or rationale as to how this could be.  Mary's own words,   "...my spirit rejoices in God _my Savior_, for he has regarded the low  estate of his handmaiden,..."  sound like the words of a human aware of her own humanity, in need of a  Savior, similar to what David proclaimed in his psalms...not the words of a holy being with no further need for God's grace.  I really apologize for harping on this, I don't suppose it's important. It's just that I see Mary and Joseph and the Baby reduced to placid, serene figurines I feel we lose the wonder in the fact that God chose to come down to you and I, to be born of people like you and I, to share our existence and redeem us from it's fallenness by his holy Incarnation.
My, my, my.  I knew that I would receive a response to my post, but not THIS extensive.  Thank you to all who responded; it at least showed that people were willing to think about it, even though the general response was a return to the same old "Why should it matter?" question.  To those of you who were a part of this response, I suggest that you read the articles covering this same question in soc.culture.african.american, for you are in DIRE need of some cultural enlightenment.  Hasta luego
I just about closed this once before.  I'm now doing so for real, after tonight's posting.
In article <Apr.8.00.57.41.1993.28246@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.gov writes: >In article <Apr.7.01.56.56.1993.22824@athos.rutgers.edu> shrum@hpfcso.fc.hp.com >Matt. 22:9-14 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find >there, invite to the wedding feast.'...  >hmmmmmm.  Sounds like your theology and Christ's are at odds. Which one am I  >to believe?
Were the early Christians weird?  Yes!  So were their non-Christian contemporaries (the more familiar you are with late Republican Rome or the Pricipate, the weirder those people will seem -- forget the creative filtering done by Renaissance and Eighteenth Century hero worship.)  So are modern non-Christians.  And Christians.  You are pretty weird, yourself, with your rather acid dismissal of Luther and of Protestantism -- and in apparently buying into a simplistic propaganda model about Catholicism *not* being faddish.   Sure, it's so large that global fads take longer cycles than they do in smaller denominations (and local ones are not usually visible unless you do a lot of traveling to exotic lands :-)).  May I recom- mend, as a salutary antidote to this nonsense Philippe Aries' book _The Hour of our Death_, a longitudinal study of death customs in  Western [specifically Catholic] Christendom?  And it won't help to escape into the obscurity of the first Christian century.  Paul was pretty weird, too; as were Peter and the others in the (apparently quite weird) circle around Jesus.  What I think you might find helpful is a bit more charity -- try to understand these weirdos and nutcases with the same respect and love you would expect others to show YOUR notions.  We *are* commanded to love one another, after all.  And Brown's book is, in fact, a heroic attempt to SEE the groupings he talks about as motivated in love and the gospel and their social contexts.  (If anything, Brown is *too* heroic here -- he manages to overstrain himself at times :-))  I don't suggest that we *follow* any of these old cult paths -- and it raises hard questions from the skeptic inside me that so much of early Christianity *was* like the weird (Christian and non-Christian) cults we see today.  To that extent, I think you raise a serious problem (and perhaps your phrasing is implicitly self-deprecatory and ironic.)  But the first principle for *answering* these questions is respect and love for those we do not understand.  And it helps to *work* at under- standing (as long as we do not get overwhelmed by revulsion and begin to withdraw our respect for them as people.)  I would advise, in other words, MORE historical reading (Brown's other books are also good, most especially his bio. of Augustine; also try Robin Lane Fox's _Christians and Pagans_, maybe the Paul Veyne ed. _History of Private Life_, some of Foucault's books on sexuality in the ancient world ...)  Humanity *is* weird -- we have known ONE sane person, and we killed Him. Fortunately for us, this has proved a Comedy rather than a Tragedy.  Easter, 1993.  (yes; this is a tad early -- our Vigil service here has been moved forward because so many churches in the area have taken to doing their own Vigils, and the seminarians must therefore worship-and-run if they are to do it here and there as well.  Think of this as an Anglican fad.  :-))
Reply-To: pwhite@empros.com In article <Apr.15.00.58.29.1993.28900@athos.rutgers.edu>, 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:   |> 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.   Here in America people tend to think of choosing a church much like they think of choosing a car or a country club. What I mean is that our  culture is such that we tend towards satisfying our own wants rather than considering things with others in mind and not making prayer  an initial and primary part of the decision process. People tend to treat church as they would a club and when something is less than to their liking, off they go to another one.  I think that scripture presents the idea that God takes a different  perspective on the "church choosing process". It seems to me from 1Cor 12 that God doesn't subscribe to the idea of us choosing a church at all but that he places us in the body as he wants us. So, I think a better question is not how do I choose a church but how do I figure out where God is trying to place me.  If a person was instrumental in leading you to Christ, the church they go to is a logical first choice. You have been born into the family of God. People should hop around from church to church as often as they hop from natural family to family.  If you met the Lord on your own (so to speak) there may not be an  easily identifiable church to try for starters. Here you are more like an orphan. Prayerfully go and "leave yourself on a few doorsteps" and see if anyplace feels like home.   I wouldn't expect that God want to place you in a church where you have difficulty fitting in with the people, but on the other hand there are no perfect churches. If you have an attitude of looking for problems you will both find them and make them. On the other hand if you have an attitude of love and committment, you will spread that wherever you go.   In general, I think that God will try to place you in a church that talks about the Lord in the way that you have come to know him and is expanding on that base.
In article <Apr.19.05.11.36.1993.29109@athos.rutgers.edu>, ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata) writes:  > I think you are vastly oversimplifying things. We know that early Christians > suffered totures because of their witness to Christ.  For example:  [ ACT 5:40 - 41 ]  > It appears that the Jewish rulers of that time had a particular aversion > to even hearing Jesus's name. ... > Finally, the first apostle's death, James of Zebedee was certainly > not by Rome's hand any more than the first martyr Stephen.  ... > The problem was that if one believed in the Resurrection, then one > must believe in Jesus as truly being the Son of God and what He > stood for and preached during His ministry on Earth.  That would > have been extremely difficult for some people, especially those > that had plotted to kill Him.   The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  Moreover Luke's account is written at least 90 years after the fact.  In the meantime everyone he mentions has died and attempts to find actual written sources behind the text have come up with only the we section of the later portion of acts as firmly established. Moreover, Pauls account of some of the events in Acts (as recorded in  Galatians) fail to establish the acts accounts.   What we need, therefore, is a reliable text, critically appreciated, which documents the death of Christians for belief in the Resurrection.  I would suggest you look at some greek and roman historians.  I think you will be disapointed.
Aaron Bryce Cardenas writes:  >Basically the prophet's writings make up the Old Testament, the apostles'  >writings make up the New Testament.  These writings, recorded in the Bible,  >are the foundation of the church.  hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:  >That seems a most peculiar interpretation of the text. The "apostles and >prophets" were PEOPLE, rather than writings. And there were new testament >prophets as well, who built up the churches.  Remember the OT doctrine of 2 witnesses?  Perhaps the prophets testified He is coming.  The Apostles, testified He came.
Hi Christian friends,  My name is Joel, I have a sister who's 25th birthday is tomorrow.....She used to be on fire for the Lord, but somehow, for some reason, she became cold....she don't want to associate anymore with her old christian friends.........so I thought maybe some of you could help her out again by sending her a postcard or card with a little message of encouragement.....hand written is okay....her address is 3150 Hobart Ave. San Jose Ca. 95127...........  Thank you and God Bless.  PS: Jesus Christ is LORD!!!!!!!!
The concept of God as a teacher is indeed interesting. Does He grade on a curve, does He cheat? That is interesting. Not to mention thought provoking. My own concept is that He is a Father and we are His children. In that He loves us, with a love that we can never understand until we are with Him. The Bible says that He looks on the heart as the final measure. From that perspective, in a grading context, the heart is the final test. Specifically, most Christians would agree that there is only one Heaven and one Hell. From that perspective, it is Heaven or Hell. You either go to one or the other. The "grading" on a pass/fail basis is done by God the Father with intervention by Jesus the Son. Not by others. For only God sees the heart. The Bible says of the heart, "...who can know it." I would say there has always been, and always be, an unchanging method. That is what makes a relationship with Christ so secure. In an uncertain and ever changing landscape He is always the same. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Concerning whether or not our childhoods are considerd as part of the test, my own conviction is no. Were that the case I certainly wouldn't be going to Heaven. The Bible speaks very plainly about the love and care Jesus had for and about children. The reality is that we are all children. Some of us just have bigger bodies and grey hair. But the Father, our Father is always there. Like most Fathers He wants only the best for His own. There maybe decipline, but there is more love. It's sometimes looks like Christianity is a test, to see who makes it and who doesn't. Those who do pass=Heaven, and those who don't go to the other place. But it is really much more than that... There are few experts. Most of us are just travelers looking for the light and the way Home. Praying that we can bring others with us.
I am beginning an e-mail discussion group about cell churches.  If you are a follower of Jesus Christ and are    - in a cell church, or   - in a church that is transitioning to a cell church, or   - just interested in learning more about cell churches,  send me e-mail.  (I reserve the right to remove anybody from the group who does not demonstrate a spirit of humility and Christlikeness.)
In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>   emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes: [much of the excellent post deleted for space -- TjL]  )->With all the suffering and persecution that it meant to be a believer,   it )->would be quite probable that at least one of those in the supposed   conspiracy )->would come forward and confess that the whole thing was a big hoax.    Yet )->not one did.  It seems rather reasonable that the disciples did not   make )->up the resurrection but sincerely believed that Jesus had actually   risen )->from the dead; especially in light of the sufferings that came upon   those )->who believed.   I was at the "Jubilee" conference this year in Pittsburgh PA, and the   speaker there spoke of this as well. He talked about many of the same   things you mentioned in your post, but here he went into a little more   detail.  I'll paraphrase as best I can:  "Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to   tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being   burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a   scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,   bone, and anything else that they could find attached to it.  You would be   stood facing a wall, with nothing to protect you.  "When the whip hit you the first time, it would tear the flesh off you   with instant incredibly intense pain.  You would think to yourself `All   this for a lie?'  The second hit would drop you to your knees, you would   scream out in agony that your raw back was being torn at again.  You would   say to yourself: `All this for a lie?'  And you had 37 more coming.  "At the third hit you would scream out that it was all a lie, beg for them   to stop, and tell them that you would swear on your life that it had all   been a lie, if they would only stop...."  It is amazing enough that those who believed kept their faith under such   torture.... but for a lie?  There is no one fool enough to do that.... And   no one came forward.  Excellent post John, thanks for taking the time.