waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Daniel Segard (dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:  [a lot of stuff deleted]  :      For that matter, stay Biblical and call it Omar Rasheet (The Feast of : First Fruits).  Torah commands that this be observed on the day following : the Sabbath of Passover week.  (Sunday by any other name in modern : parlance.)  Why is there so much objection to observing the Resurrection : on the 1st day of the week on which it actually occured?  Why jump it all : over the calendar the way Easter does?  Why not just go with the Sunday : following Passover the way the Bible has it?  Why seek after unbiblical : methods? :   In fact, that is the reason Easter "jumps all over the calendar"- Passsover itself is a lunar holiday, not a solar one, and thus falls over a wide possible span of times.  The few times that Easter does not fall during or after Passover are because Easter is further linked to the Vernal Equinox- the beginning of spring.  [more deletions] :   :       So what does this question have to do with Easter (the whore : goddess)?  I am all for celebrating the Resurrection.  Just keep that : whore out of the discussion. :   Your obsession with the term "whore" clouds your argument.  "Whore" is a value judgement, not a descriptive term.  [more deletions]  Overall, this argument is an illustration of the "etymological fallacy" (see J.P. Louw: _Semantics of NT Greek_).  That is the idea that the true meaning of a word lies in its origins and linguistic form.  In fact, our own experience demonstrates that the meaning of a word is bound up with how it is _used_, not where it came from.  Very few modern people would make any connection whatsoever between "Easter" and "Ishtar."  If Daniel Seagard does, then for him it has that meaning.  But that is a highly idiosyncratic "meaning," and not one that needs much refutation.
In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:  >I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see no  >Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.    Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the celebration  of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous for the individual Christian who might be identified.  Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --
Jon Ogden (jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com) wrote: : It is a dead and useless faith which has no action behind it.  Actions : prove our faith and show the genuineness of it.  A good example of this is Abraham (referred to in the James passage). Hebrews says that Abraham was justified by faith -- but his faith was demonstrated through his works (i.e., he obeyed what God told him to do).  Reading Abraham's ``biography'' in Genesis is very instructive. He was a man beset by *lack* of faith a lot of the time (e.g. lying about Sarah being his wife on 2 occasions; trying to fulfil God's promise on God's behalf by copulating with Hagar). . . yet it seems that God didn't evaluate him on the basis of individual incidents. Abraham is listed as one of the ``heroes of  faith'' in Hebrews 11. i.e., when it really came to the crunch, God declared Abraham as a man of faith. He believed God's promises.  This gives us confidence. Although real faith demonstrates itself through works, God is not going to judge us according to our success/failure in performing works.  ``Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit.'' (Titus 3.5)  Amazing Grace! Hallelujah!
>> [ To summarize: >> While questioning the sagacity of someone who said they would  >> "rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven >> knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being >> scorched for his wrongdoings..." I described how horrible hell >> is and compared the above statement with Jesus' >> suffering on the cross in order to prevent people going to hell.]  which Kenneth Engel challenges: > Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard.  > He lived ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is  > the above paragraph, then JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?  I will wimp out and admit that I never liked the metaphor of Jesus "paying" for our sins in the sense that many Christians accept as literal. The point is that God understands the suffering we go through, not just intellectually like when we watch the Somalians on TV, but _really_ understands, He can "feel"  our pain. This fact is manifested by Jesus' life. We can argue that someone in history might have suffered more than Jesus, we can think of more horrible torture than crucifixion, we can think of cases of betrayal and fruitless effort leading to worse despair, but the main point is that Jesus is in the trenches with us, He is in everyone, whatever I do to the least of humanity I do to Him, and whatever I do for the least of humanity I do for Him.  Now, to reconcile this with the existence of hell is beyond my capabilities, but that wasn't my goal.  > I'd be surprised to see the moderator let this one through,   Thankfully our moderator is surprising.  > but I seriously want a reasonable explanation for this.  As I re-read this I must admit that this is more of a description of my faith than an explanation, but perhaps that's all I can do, hopefully that's all I have to do.
In article <Apr.13.00.09.07.1993.28452@athos.rutgers.edu> simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (simon shields) writes: >Hi All > >Hope you all had a Blessed Easter. I have a document which I believe >refutes the notion that the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is in >schism, or that there has been any legitimate excommunication. If >anyone is interested in reading the truth about this matter please >email me and I'll send them the document via email. Its 26 pages long, >so I wont be posting it on the news group.  I may be interesting to see some brief selections posted to the net. My understanding is that SSPX does not consider ITSELF in schism or legitimately excommunicated.  But that's really beside the point. What does the Roman Catholic church say?  Excommunication can be real apart from formal excommunication, as provided for in canon law.  After all we Orthodox don't cinsider ourselves schismatic or excommunicated.  But the Catholic Church considers us dissident.  If this is inappropriate for this group or beyond the charter, I'm sure OFM will let us know.  Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --  ------- Lawrence Overacker Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965 llo@shell.com
I have been looking for a book that specifically addresses the mystery of God in the paradox.  I have read some that touch on the subject in a chapter but would like a more detailed read.  Is anyone aware of any books that deal with this subject.  Please e-mail me.  Thanks.
Adam, I just finished a study on this, not only looking at the prophecies themselves, but where they were fulfilled.  While going only through the OT, I found 508 references.  After starting to show their fulfillment, I found out that I had missed some, so needless to say I cannot post them here.  However, the study I did I intend to publish (I am in the process of organizing and showing the fulfillments, then I will be ready to write and send it to a publisher).  With any luck (and/or free time) I should have it finally done sometime around September (I hope).
For those who pray in tongues,        When is it appropriate for you to pray/speak in tongues and why?  I just would like to gain more knowledge about this subject.
dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:   >                                       Unfaithfully yours,  >                                       Pixie   >     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow >it blindly?    >     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?  >     I defy any theist to reply.
Bill Burns was looking for a description of the differnces  between the Catholic and Lutheran churches.  I'd recommend Prof. William Whalen's book "Separated Brethren".  It's an overview of common US denominations, intended for a Catholic audience.
Bob Van Cleef writes:     If the Papacy is infallible, and this is a matter of faith, then the     Pope cannot "be wrong!"  If, on the other hand, this is not a matter     of faith, but a matter of Church law, then we should still obey as the    Pope is the legal head of the church.     In other words, given the doctrine of infallibility, we have no choice    but to obey.  This is a primary problem in the Church today.  What you are saying is more or less heresy.  You might call it "infallibilism".  It's the idea that the Pope is always right in everything he says or does. This is virtually all over the place, especially in this country.  The Pope is only infallible under certain very specific and well-defined conditions.  When these conditions are not met, he can make mistakes.  He can make *big* mistakes.  A couple historical examples come to mind.  Bishop Robert Grosseteste was perhaps the greatest product of the English Catholic Church.  At one point during his career, the reigning Pope decided to install one of his nephews in an English see.  Bishop Grosseteste said that this would happen over his dead body (though maybe not in so many words; you have to treat Popes with respect, even when they are wrong).  The problem was that this nephew would just collect the income of the see, and probably never set foot there. This would deprive the people of the see of a shepherd.  Bishop Grosseteste was quite right in what he did!  Another example is that of Pope John XXII, a Pope of the Middle Ages. He decided that souls that were saved did not enjoy the Beatific Vision until the Last Judgement.  He decided that this should be a defined doctrine of the Church.  Though he didn't quite get around to defining it.  Now there's no way this is compatible with Catholic doctrine.  The Pope's doctrine was criticised by many in the Church. He went so far as to put a number of his opponents in jail, even.  In the end, he had to admit his mistake.  Shortly before he died, he recanted.  His successor made the exact *opposite* idea a dogma of the Church.  If you consult any of the great Catholic theologians who treat of such subjects, such as St. Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church), you will find detailed discussions of whether the Pope can personally fall into heresy or schism.
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.  It is a basic |coverage of the 30 ideas that SDA's hold to.  For further info about it, |please write me later (once I get the actual title and/or copyright |date) or Celia Chan, cmchan@amber.ucs.indiana.edu, because she first |"introduced" me to the book (I must also add that she is NOT a member of |the SDA anymore).  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.)
Greetings,  Probably a tired old horse, but...  maybe with a slightly different twist.  I wanted to know if there are any good English-language texts for learning ancient Hebrew, and how these compare with German educational texts qualitywise, if anybody has an idea.  I can't figure out if I should buy one here for later study or wait until I get back to the U.S.  Something I find interesting about studying theology in Germany is the fact that the students get their ancient language-learning out of the way early [I'm not a theology student, but I spend a lot of time with such folks] in their careers.  They take the first two years or so to just do Greek and Latin and Hebrew [possibly Aramaic, too--who knows]. What's it like at divinity schools or seminaries in the States?  Is there a lot of language instruction done?  I really don't have a basis for comparison.  Regards, Phil --  Philip Sells                 Is anything too hard for the LORD? k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu           --Gen. 18:14
Rex (REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov) writes:  >It is also of interest to note that in 1825, on the occasion of a jubilee, Pope >Leo the 12th had a medallion cast with his own image on one side and on >the other side, the Church of Rome symbolized as a "Woman, holding in >her left hand a cross, and in her right a cup with legend around her, >'Sedet super universum',  'The whole world is her seat."  	You read more into the medal than it is worth.  The Woman is the Church.  Catholics have always called our Church "Holy Mother Church" and our "Mother."  An example would be from St. Cyprian of Carthage, who wrote in 251 AD, "Can anyone have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother?" 	Hence the image of the Church as a woman, holding a Cross and a Cup, which tell of the Crucifxition of Our Lord, and of the power of His Blood (the grail legend, but also, more significantly, it shows that "This is the Cup of the New Covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you and for many." (Luke 22.20), the Cup represents the New Covenant and holds the blood of redemption).  The fact that the woman is holding both and is said to have the whole world for her seat, is that the Catholic Church is catholic, that is universal, and is found throughout the world, and the Church shows the Crucifixtion and applies the blood of redemption to all mankind by this spread of hers, thorugh which the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, can be said and celebrated in all the nations as Malachi predicted in Malachi 1.11, "From the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the gentiles, and everywhere there is sacrafice, and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation, for my Name is great among the gentiles, says the Lord of hosts."  And so we acknowledge what St. Paul wrote "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death until he comes." (1 Corinthians 11.26)  	You are quite right about the identification of "Babylon the Great, Mother of all Harlots" with Rome.  I think we simply disagree as to what time period of Rome the Apostle John is talking about.
I have been looking at some of the recent productions on homosexuality and decided that I was interested in videotaped copies of these.  If anyone can help me out here, I would very much appreciate it.  Here is what I am looking for:  * - "The Gay Agenda" produced by Ty Beeson's group The Report.  * - John Ankerberg's recent series "Understanding Homosexuality and Experiencing Genuine Change."  * - James Kennedy's special on homosexuality which aired this week, and the portion of the previous week's program which discussed "The Gay Agenda."  I will not pay money for copies, since this is copyrighted material and that would be illegal.  I will pay for return postage.  If somebody can think of something they would desire in trade, please let me know and I'll see what I can do.  Oh, BTW, I'm watching the March On Washington right now on C-SPAN.  Other than the fact that I'm generally repulsed by what I'm watching, I found one thing of interest.  General David Dinkins just finished speaking, and remarked that the New York City delegation consists of about 200,000 people.  Funny, I don't see 200,000 people out there, period.  Must've been quite the party scene last night.  Or maybe their exaggerations were just too much.  Sean Patrick Ryan****fsspr@aurora.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com 3215 Oregon Dr. #2, Anchorage, AK  99517-2048****907-272-9184****fnord Abortion stops a beating heart****Disclaimer:  I didn't inhale, either IDITAROD SCOREBOARD 1993 - MEN 16, WOMEN 5****Read alt.flame.sean-ryan
I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_ paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans.  Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions. Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.
In article <Apr.11.01.02.39.1993.17790@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:  >  Religious people are threatened by science because it has been systematically >removing the physical "proofs" of God's existence.  As time goes on we have to >rely more and more on faith and the spiritual world to relate to God becuase >science is removing our props.  I don't think this is a bad thing. > 	First of all, I resent your assumption that you know why I am threatened by science, or even that I am threatened at all, although I admit the latter.  The reason I am threatened by Science has nothing to do with my need for proof of my Lord's existence-- God reveals Himself in many ways, including, to some degree, Science.  	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us with the ability to produce life through sexual relations, for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone. Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power to decide who should and should not be able to have  children?  Should men be allowed to have babies, if that is made possible.  	People have always had the ability to end lives unnaturally, and soon may have the ability to bring lives into the world unnaturally.  The closest thing to artificially created life is artificially created death, and as God has reserved judgement about when people should die to Himself, I believe we should rely on God's wisdom about how people should be brought in to the world.  	This is not to say that I reject all forms of medical treatment, however.  Treatment that alleviates pain, or prevents pain from occuring, is perfectly acceptable, I believe, as it was acceptable for Jesus to cure the sick.  However, treatment that merely  prolongs life for no reason, or makes unnecessary  alterations to the body for mere aesthetic purposes,   go too far.  Are we not happy with the beauty God gave us?  	I cannot draw a solid line regarding where I would approve of Scientific study, and where I would not, but I will say this:  Before one experiments with the universe to find out all its secrets, one should ask why they want this knowledge.  Before one alters the body they have been given, they should ask themseles why their body is not satisfactory too them as it is.  I cannot make any general rules that will cover all the cases, but I will say that each person should pray for guidance when trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and should cease their unravelling if they have reason to  believe their search is displeasing to God.
In article <Apr.21.03.26.51.1993.1379@geneva.rutgers.edu> lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes: >Hi everyone,  >	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know >that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet >hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools, >do you still think that just believing is enough?'  some deleted  >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' > >Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.  Dear Will,  I've never replied on this thing before so I hope it gets thru ok. I had a few thoughts!:  "Faith on its own, if not accompanied by action is dead" - James 2:17  Faith is both belief and action. If I say that I am a great swimmer but I never go swimming, am I really a swimmer? and will people believe that I am? Likewise if I say I'm a Christian but I never talk to God, am I really a Christian? My faith is demonstrated by my action. The fact that we talk to God proves we have faith. Satan believes in God but does not follow Him!  In a similar vein, I have recently been challenged by 1John2:3-6 v3 says "We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands" I find this verse quite encouraging as it could imply that 'if we have come to know Him, then we'll obey His commands' cos He lives within us and we cannot help but obey what He says. I tend to feel that as we daily submit ourself to God He will keep changing us into the likeness of Jesus and His fruit and works will be automatically produced in our lives.  Hope this helps.
Hi I am a Sociology student and I am currently researching into  young offenders.  I am looking at the way various groups of  children are raised at home.  At the moment I am formlulating  information on discipline within the Christian home.  Please, if you are a parent in this catagory can you email me  your response to the following questionaire.  All responses  will be treated confidentially and will only be used to prepare  stats.  1.  Ages & sexes of children  2.  Do you spank your kids?  3.  If so how often?  4.  Do you use an implement to spank with?    5. If you do not spank, what method of discipline do you use?  6.  Your age?  7.  Your location  8.  While under the age of 16 did you ever commit a criminal  offence?  9.  How ere you disciplined as a kid   Thank you in advance for any reply you can make.  Please e-mail  your replies rather than post them on the newsgroup
Of course, I'd still recommend that Michael read _True and Reasonable_ by Douglas Jacoby.  Joe Fisher
In <Apr.10.05.31.12.1993.14351@athos.rutgers.edu> harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood) writes:  >There had been recent criticism of this in a listserv for academic >Biblical scholars: they all say the book(s) are modern fakes. >D.H.  Which listsev was this and is the discussion still current?  My questioning is based on some information presented from the Essene NT that challenges some of my eating choices.  As the info came from a biased (opposed to my preferences) third party I am looking for info as to whether I should dismiss this work or put some consideration into it.  Thanks again for info!
In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes: >   > [Very good and reasonable statements on "authority" deleted] >  > The atheist position seems to be that there are no authorities. This is a > reasonable assertion in itself, but it leads to a practical difficulty. > If you reject all authority out of hand, you reject all possibility of > every receiving information. Thus the atheist position can never possibly > change. It is non-falsifiable and therefore unscintific.   This is not true.  The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the existence of God.  As much as some people accept their Church, their priests or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not  satisfy atheists.  Atheists DO believe in recognisable authorities.  If they were as dogmatic as you claim they are, they would be trying to prove 1 + 1 =2 every time they got up.  What they dispute is that Churches, priests, scriptures etc. represent true authorities and know the TRUTH.  > To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny > God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very > nature, prove anything.  Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?  You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?  > ============================================================================== > Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but  > aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis > ==============================================================================