waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
I find it interesting that cls never answered any of the questions posed.  Then he goes on the make statements which make me shudder.  He has established a two-tiered God.  One set of rules for the Jews (his people) and another set for the saved Gentiles (his people).  Why would God discriminate?  Does the Jew who accepts Jesus now have to live under the Gentile rules.  God has one set of rules for all his people.  Paul was never against the law.  In fact he says repeatedly that faith establishes rather that annuls the law.  Paul's point is germane to both Jews and Greeks.  The Law can never be used as an instrument of salvation.  And please do not combine the ceremonial and moral laws in one.  In Matt 5:14-19 Christ plainly says what He came to do and you say He was only saying that for the Jews's benefit.  Your Christ must be a politician, speaking from both sides of His mouth.  As Paul said, "I have not so learned Christ."  Forget all the theology, just do what Jesus says.  Your excuses will not hold up in a court of law on earth, far less in God's judgement hall.
In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes: >In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes: >[referring to Mary] >>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. > >I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin. >Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make  >a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole >life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't >God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us >sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that? > >concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the >rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.  It's always a two-way street.  God gave her the grace to avoid sin, thus when she was visited by Gabriel, she gave her fiat, her total acceptance of God's will.  This fiat summarizes why Catholics regard  her as the highest of all humans, that God chose her and that she accepted.  Knowing this in advance, we extrapolate that she was neither stained by nor subject to original sin.  God did create us all miraculously free to choose or not choose to sin. "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof and the grace of God to command it."  This amount of grace was precisely determined by God to be the amount required to do what God asked of her.  The grace given to each of us is also enough, but we do not always choose to accept it.  We also believe Jesus was fully human and never sinned.    God could have created a much better person than myself, one who always chose the right thing, yet he created me instead, despite my flaws.  He proves he loves me as I am, continually drawing me towards perfection.  For whatever purpose he has for me, he has confidence that I will accomplish it.  If I ask God to repeat his miraculous creation of the mother of his son, where will that leave me?
In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu> dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes: >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. > >     I see no wisdom whatsoever in your words  I'm not surprised that you see no wisdom in them.  That is because your premises are wrong from the word "Go".  You claim that Christianity is based on blind faith, but this simply is not so.  Just look at the current thread on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection for evidence that Jesus was real and that he triumphed over death.  Furthermore, you say that Christians hold to their beliefs "regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary."  Without any evidence to support your claim, this statement is little more than an ad hominem  argument.  Mind you, I don't mean this as a personal attack.  I'm merely pointing out the intellectual dishonesty behind condemning Christianity in this fashion. It would make much more sense if you could prove that all Christians do  base their belief on empty nothings, and that they do ignore all evidence to  the contrary.  Only then can you expect your attack to make sense.
db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:  >And we also know that it is impossible to destroy the Soul.  Hmmm.  Here's food for thought:  " ...but rather be in fear of him who can destroy both soul and body in gehenna."  Math 10:28
In article <May.9.05.40.06.1993.27468@athos.rutgers.edu>,  jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes...  [...]  >There are other interpretations to Christian history in this matter. >One must recall that most of what we know about the Gnostics was >written by their enemies.  Eusebius claims that Jesus imparted secret >information to Peter, James, and John after His resurrection, and that >those apostles transmitted that information to the rest of the Twelve >(Eusebius, _Historia Ecclesiastica_ II 1:3-4).  This is curious. I read in _EH_...  "The Lord imparted the gift of knowledge to James the Just, to John  and Peter after his resurrection, these delivered it to the rest of  the apostles, and they to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one." 			  			--- Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_  It seems that the Lord imparted the gift of knowledge, not that the Lord imparted secret information.  [...]  >apostles.  Interestingly enough, Eusebius refers to the groups which >we today call Gnostics as promulgators of a false gnosis (Eusebius, >op. cit., III, 32:7-8).  His gripe was not that thay professed *a* >gnosis, but that they had the *wrong* one.  I'm afraid that I cannot find this portrayal in _EH_.  I don't see anywhere in 3:32:7-8 where Eusebius mentions that certain  gnostics had the wrong gnosis.  The closest is when Eusebius summarizes Hegesippus' statements,  "...whilst if there were any at all, that attempted to pervert  the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking  in dark retreats..."  >Now one can approach this and other such evidence in many ways.  I >don't intend that everyone interpret Christian history as I do, but I >believe that evidence exists (favorably interpreted, of course) of >early Christian rites analogous to those practiced by Mormons today.  "Favorably interpreted?" Just in looking at two of the four  references that you gave (I have the _EH_ handy, Irenaeus and the  _Clemetine Recognitions_ I will have to look for) I see no room for  such 'interpretations.'  And any such 'interpretation' still falls short of an equivalence to  the Temple Ceremonies.   The links for Jay's using _EH_ for support are: "imparting the gift  of knowledge" = "imparted secret information" = "being given secret  signs and tokens to gain entrance to heaven."  But there is not enough equivalence between the the ideas for us to be able to call  this "favorable interpretation."  It appears to be closer to  "fabrication."
In article <Apr.11.01.02.37.1993.17787@athos.rutgers.edu>, atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:  >   I don't think it's possible to convince atheists of the validity of  > Christianity through argument.  We have to help foster faith and an > understanding of God.  I could be wrong--are there any former atheists here > who were led to Christianity by argument?  This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent. when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone "knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is often indistinguishable from a poor one.  Sorry; just one of my perennial gripes...<:->  Ken
09 Apr 93, Jill Anne Daley writes to All:   JAD> What exactly is a definition of sin and what are some examples. How does  JAD> a person know when they are committing sin?  To answer briefly: sin is falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)  Steve
In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes: >In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes: >[referring to Mary] >>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. > skipping...... >I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the >perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about  >which I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters  >in Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but  >this concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with  >the rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.  The Catholic church has an entirely different view of Mary than do  "most" other Christian churches (those with parallel beliefs notwithstanding).  Christ, by most accounts, is the only sinless person to ever live.  I too, have trouble with a sinless Mary concept just.  As for the related issue of the "original" sin - only Adam and Eve will answer for that one.  My children do not answer for my sins, certainly I only answer for mine.
From article <May.13.02.28.48.1993.1471@geneva.rutgers.edu>, by creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps): >    The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in > any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that > is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change > what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all > the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too > often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in > both.  Just a little issue of semantics:  Would it not be better, then to call it "pre-determination"?!  --     RRRRR        OO       BBBBB          :    R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :    R     R   OO    OO    B    BB        :          Robert Pomeroy    R   RR    O      O    B    B         :    RRRR      O      O    BBBBB          :        u2i02@keele.ac.uk    R  R      O      O    B    B         :    R   R     OO    OO    B    BB        :              1993    R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :    R     R      OO       BBBBB          :      My address }     during   }    Hawthorns Hall, KEELE, Staffordshire, ST5 5AE. England.   term-time. }
aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:  >Bruce Webster writes: >>Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases >>holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have >>failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this >>passage applies it only to members of the LDS church).  I include the key verse (D&C 68:25) because others may not have the reference.  "And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents."  What is "the sin" of the parents?  >Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18? >Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not >share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the >son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and >the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."  >Is Ezekiel 18 not translated correctly in your eyes perhaps?  Ezekiel 18 teaches a correct principle. However, it assumes that fathers and sons have  equal knowledge to prepare for the judgment.  Parents are responsible to teach their children the Gospel and other life skills.  Should they fail to make a sufficient attempt to teach their  children, the parent would be held responsible -- not for their children's sins, but for not teaching them properly.  Whenever the Lord installs someone to a position  of authority in either the family or the church He expects that person to teach those in his charge.  In Ezekiel 33:7-9 someone called to care for others  is likened to "a watchman unto the house of Israel." "If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from  his way, that man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to  turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."  Even though the D&C prefaces this commandment with "parents have children in Zion" I believe all parents are responsible for teaching their children  whatever good principles they understand. However, LDS parents accept greater responsbility and could be judged more strictly.
In article <Apr.15.00.58.22.1993.28891@athos.rutgers.edu> ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci) writes:   > One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is >when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic. > >We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again >christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to >christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were >"spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and >sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries.
In article <May.13.02.29.39.1993.1505@geneva.rutgers.edu>, revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes: > Of course the whole issue is one of discernment.  It may be that Satan > is trying to convince us that we know more than God.  Or it may be that > God is trying (as God did with Peter) to teach us something we don't > know- that "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears > him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35). >  > revdak@netcom.com  Fine, but one of the points of this entire discussion is that "we" (conservative, reformed christians - this could start an argument... But isn't this idea that homosexuality is ok fairly "new" [this century] ? Is there any support for this being a viable viewpoint before this century? I don't know.) don't believe that homosexuality is "acceptable to Him". So your scripture quotation doesn't work for "us".
In article <May.10.05.07.56.1993.3582@athos.rutgers.edu>,  muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes: > > Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending  > > God's laws they are not accountable for living them.  > > They are in the book of life and are not removed until  > > they can make a conscious decision to disobey God.  > >  > > A IDLER  >  > If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible  > ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know  > right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."  >         What Christ did say was :  >  >         "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without  >          being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I  >          tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."  >  > Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?  >  > Mike   Do we attach some meaning of the Israelites entering "the promised land" to  Christianity?     I submit God did not hold the children responsible when the adults chose  to follow the bad report of the 10 spies over Joshua and Caleb.  This is  recorded for us in Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover your little ones, which ye said  should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge  between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give  it, and they shall possess it."     At least to me it seems there was/is an age, or point in maturity where  they were/are held responsible, and could not enter the "Promised Land",  younger ones were not held to the same "rules", at least not by God.
I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.  Suppose they are unable to get before the altar right at the current time because of purely logistical reasons beyond their control.  What do you think about this?  Post or e-mail me with general responses.  If you need clarification as to what I am asking, please e-mail.  Thanks and God bless!
In article <May.13.02.30.57.1993.1557@geneva.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again, >  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious. >--  >C. Wingate         Maybe you should dig a little further Charles.  Hislop's scholarship was accepted by the Bristish Oriental Institute which, at the time, was the premere Institute for Oriental studies.  As I've stated over and over,  I've checked out about 25% of his references (most are now out of print or in private libraries) and the likes of Wilkerson and Layard hold their own merit.  THey too came to the same conclusions and if you will trouble yourself, you will find that their knowledge of the mysteries have yet to be surpassed.  Both were highly honored by the British Oriental Museum.  Wilkerson is known as one of the leading archeologist in the history of Egyptiology and Layard is still being refered two after 200 yrs of archeology in the Mesopotamian regions.  He was recently refered to in a TIME article on Babylonian archeology.    Phony scholarship is when you review their references and find that they have misquoted or misrepresented the conclusions.  Hislop did not.  His conclusions do not tickle the ears, that much is self evident.  But to assert that his conclusions are "spurious" is without merit.  He gave references to all his conclusions and as I have stated, for the last 25 years I have used his conclusions in debates at RC seminaries and brotherhoods, not to mention the individual priests and bishops that I have talked to one on one.  No counter to Hislops scholarship was made.  The only rebuttals were against his conclusions because they do totally undermined the claims of the RCC. He was showing that the intitution of the RCC was based on the mysteries (which others have shown even to this day in various articles and topics).  THe tongues movement in Corinth was a direct result of the mysteries entering into the church.  If it was so in Corinth, why could they not have an influence in Rome, the city of seven hills?  Also, you do not have to listen to his conclusions, you can draw your own conclusions by looking at the customs, artifacts, the cerimonial dress, the docrine of purgatory, etc from the vantage of the mysteries.  You don't even have to be a believer to see the parallels.  Just one example.  THe mitre.  Where did it come from?  Why is it shaped the way it is?  What are the two tails that hang down the back represent?  Was this an ancient  head dress from an earlier culture and why was it in Rome at the time of the beginnings of the church of the State of Rome?  Does it have pagan history behind it, and if so, why did the RCC chose regardless?  Any lay person of middle eastern religion can answer these questions.  Even the scriptures themselves refer to it.  All Hislop did was collect the information from all the various sources and put them in one binding.  There is no lack of scholorship in that.  Please tell me why you discredit this man by your accusation, yet present no evidence supporting it.
I recall reading somewhere that a number of bishops spent  a great deal of  time  debating the topic of "how many angels could fit on the tip of a needle".      Does anybody have a reference to this?      Thanks
In article <Apr.8.00.57.31.1993.28227@athos.rutgers.edu> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes: >It seems I spend a significant amount of my time correcting errors about >the reliability tests for condoms and abstinence.  A few years ago I saw >that famous study that showed a "10% failure rate" for condoms.  The >same study showed a 20% failure rate for abstinence!!  That is, adult >couples who relied on abstinence to prevent pregnancy got pregnant in >alarming numbers--they didn't have the willpower to abstain.  And we're >thinking that this will work with high school kids?!?  I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices", actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested.  The article included sources to contact for information on research verifying these statements, and an outstanding source for info on acquiring abstinence-related curricula even in single-copy quantities for home use.  The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy rate.  The difference is not in "contraceptive technology" but in the values taught to the children.  The PP/SIECUS curricula taught the kids that they have legitimate choices, while the abstinence related curricula taught them that they did _not_ have _legitimate_ choices other than abstinence.  It is the values system that is the strongest determinent of the behavior behavior of these kids.  Despite the better track record of abstinence-related curricula, they are suppressed in favor of curricula that produce an effect contrary to that desired.    Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks):  Why don't we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence?  Isn't it because we know that a class in "how to use drugs safely if you _choose_ to use drugs" would increase drug use?  Why isn't "drug abstinence education" barred from schools because it teaches "religion"?  Aren't we abandoning those children who will use drugs anyway, and need instruction in their safe use?