waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Nabil wrote: >5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis >of the Logos Incarnate.  Marhaba Nabil,  If we posit two minds in Christ, the mind of the logos and the mind of the human Jesus, then we must admit two wills.  A mind is not a mind without a will.  I know this has been dealt with in past Church prnouncements, but there is a philosophical problem here that should examined.  T. V. Morris argued that the Incarnation can be seen like this:        _____________		      (Mind of Logos)      (	 _______   )      (	(	)  )	Here, the mind of Jesus is circumsribed by God the      (	( Human	)  )	Son.  God the Son has complete access to the human      (  ( Mind	)  )	mind but the human mind only has access to the mind      (	(	)  )	of God the Son when the Son allows access.  This       (	(_______)  )	explains why Jesus said even he did not know the       (_____________)	time of the kingdom.	  The human will acted in accordance with the divine will according to free human decision.  But if the human will would have decided differently than what was intended the divine will would have interceded, but this was never the case.  He employs some very interesting analogies to support the one person/two mind theory.  The ideas of a completely healthy version of split personality from the field of psychology, and the intriguing ideas of being in a dream, seeing yourself acting, knowing that is you, but also being omniscient.    The one hypostasis would be the unity of the two minds.  Agreed.  But I am still waiting for Morris and others to respond to the lingering problem of two minds making two persons.  Christian analytic philosophers are breaking new ground in explicating the rationality of Theism and the Incarnation.   ====================================           Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu) University of Georgia, Athens Institute of Higher Ed.
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.  Note that "scientific evidence" in this area does not prove any conclusions. There has been evidence to suggest that a certain part of homosexual's brains are different from heterosexuals- but that proves very little.  Also notice that the apostles did not have with them the "scientific evidence" linking certain genes with alcoholism, or stealing with certain genetic problems.  Even if they did have scientific evidence, I doubt it would have stopped them from communicating the teaching from the Holy  Spirit that these things are sinful.  This reminds me of a conversation with a professor of mine.  He said  something very true.  Christianity teaches that we should not give in to our every inclination.  Most people do give in to their leanings. In Christianity, we have the concept of struggling with the flesh, and bringing it into submission.  One person may have a problem with his temper, and having a murderous heart, another may have a problem with homosexuality, another may be inclined to greed.  But God offers us the opportunity to be more than conquerers.  >sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual >behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself >suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that >the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply....  The preying mantis bites the head off of her mate after she mates with him.  Is it natural for a woman to do the same thing to her husband? The Bible is concerned with human morality, and only touches on animal morality as it relates to humans.
Hello everyone.  Last week I posted a similar question to alt.wedding.  Now I come in search of a deeper-level answer.  My fiance is Lutheran and I am Catholic.  We plan on getting married in her church because she is living there now and I plan on moving there in a month or so.  I called my Catholic priest to find out what I needed to do in order for the marriage to be recognized by my church.  Needless to say that I have found that there is no "hard and fast" rule when it comes to how the Catholic law for interfaith weddings is interpreted. But I'm pretty sure that we CAN get married without too much problem; the trick lies in the letter of dispensation.  But that is not why I am here....  What I'd like to know is:    What are the main differences between the Lutheran and Catholic religions?   My priest mumbled something about how the Eucharist was understood...   I have heard that if two religions combine soon, it would be these two.  Any help would be appreciated...  Thanks so much!  Bill --    Bill Burns  [ Internet: wdburns@mtu.edu ]  Mac Network System Administrator               [ AppleLink: SHADOW         ]  Apple Student Rep, MTU First we must band together as friends,      then mearcilessly crush our enemies into paste.
OFM responds to a query about reference works:     [Aside from a commentary, you might also want to consider an    introduction.  These are books intended for use in undergraduate Bible    courses.  They give historical background, discussion of literary    styles, etc.  And generally they have good bibligraphies for further    reading.  I typically recommend Kee, Froehlich and Young's NT    introduction...  Two other Intros to consider:  The "Introduction" by Ku:mmel is a translation of a strandard NT text. The references are slightly dated and the style is somewhat dense, but the book contains a wealth of information.  Perrin and Duling's Intro is also very good.  It's somewhat more modern than Ku:mmel's but not quite so densely packed.  Also the authors tend to go through the books of the NT in the historical order of composition; this gives a very useful perspective on the development of the NT.     ... There are also some good one-volume commentaries.  ... Probably the    best recommendation these days would be Harper's Bible Commentary.  A slight dissent: I think the Harper's is "OK" but not great.  One particular problem I have is that it tends to be pretty skimpy on bibliographic material.  My feeling is that it is OK for quick look-ups, but not real useful for study in depth (e.g. I keep a copy in my office at work).     ... (I think there may be a couple of books with this title...  So far as I know there is the only one book with this exact title (James L Mays, general editor, Harper and ROw, 1988) although I think I recall a (older) series under the name "Harper Commentaries".  Also there's a separate Harper's Bible Dictionary (most of my comments on the HC also apply to the HBD.)  My favorite one-volume commentary is the "New Jerome Biblical Commentary".  The NJBC is rather Catholic in focus and somewhat biased towards the NT.  (The reader can decide for her- or himself whether these are pluses or minuses.)  In any case the scholarship is by and large excellent.  NOTE: The NJBC is a completely reworked, updated version of the "Jerome Biblical Commentary", copies of which can still be found on sale.
There was a recent discussion of Dungeons and Dragons and other role playing games.  Since there is a lot of crossover between gamers and science fiction and fantasy fans, I will mention that I am the editor and publisher of RADIO FREE THULCANRA, a Christian-oriented science fiction fanzine.  It is not a Christian magazine with a special interest in science fiction.  It is a science fiction fanzine with a special interest in Christianity.  Gaming is not a major topic of discussion but it has come up in some letters.  (No, there are no arguments about whether D&D is satanic.  People who think it is are not likely to be reading RFT.)  Anyway, I am now working on the April issue.  I will send a sample copy to any reader of soc.religion.christian who requests it.  It is printed on paper, so requests should include a snail-mail address. ------- Marty Helgesen Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
In article <Mar.18.02.31.54.1993.25350@athos.rutgers.edu> clitton@opie.bgsu.edu writes: >From: clitton@opie.bgsu.edu >Subject: Branch Davidians info >Date: 18 Mar 93 07:31:55 GMT >I am looking for any information on the Branch Davidians.  Send info to Chad >Litton, ACS Dept. BGSU, Bowling Green OH  43403.  Or e-mail to >clitton@andy.bgsu.edu  Thanks in advance.  I don't claim to be an expert on the branch Davidians, but I might know more  than most.  The Branch Davidian group (led by Koresh) is actually one of two off-shoots  of a group known as the Shephard's Rod.  The Shephard's Rod (now  defunct as far as I know)broke off from the SDA Church in the 30's.  The Shephard's Rod broke away from the SDA Church because they felt that the  SDA Church was becoming weak and falling into apostacy.  They felt that they  were the remnant spoken about in Revelation.  About the Koresh group, Koresh gained control of it in 1987 or 1988.  Once  in control, he made himself the center of it. He proclaimed himself as  Christ.  Koresh himself came from an SDA background. He was excommunicated as a young  adult by the local congregation for trying to exert too much control over  the youth in the church.  After this, he joined the Branch Davidians.  They were/are a survivalist cult. This is why they had the stockpile of  weapons, food, a bomb shelter, etc.  They had no intent of raiding the US  government or anything. They were preparing for Armaggedon and were  putting themselves in a self defense position.    In my opinion, if the ATF and the FBI had left well enough alone, we wouldn' t have the blood of 20+ children crying out from the ashes in Waco.  If you want to know about The Shephard's Rod, you might want to visit the  local SDA church and talk to some of the older people.  They could give you  some insight into where Koresh got his theology.
In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu>, dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu  (Pixie) writes: >  >      Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you? >  >      I defy any theist to reply.        For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?  Chris Mussack
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite) writes: >In article <May.11.02.39.09.1993.28334@athos.rutgers.edu> dhammers@pacific.?  >(David Hammerslag) writes: >  >>This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile >>the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection >>people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)? >  >[deletions] >  >I think what Jesus is saying here (and it is clearest in Matthew's >and Mark's accounts) is that marriages will not be performed in the >resurrection.  This goes along with our belief that if a person is >to marry at all it must be done on this earth... [deletions]  The problem with this view is that the topic under discussion in this passage *is* marriages that were performed on earth.  Jesus' words seem to me to indicate that He regards His response as the answer to their question about which earthly marriage would be valid after the resurrection. This being the case, the most straightforward interpretation, in my opinion, is that marriage does not exist in the next life because those who are raised are of a different nature than what we are now.  Other- wise, why would Jesus offer "but are like the angels in heaven" as a contrast to the idea of the resurrected marrying and being given in marriage?  We do not have angel-like natures now, but someday we shall, and when we do, our earthly marriages will be irrelevant.  Or at least, that's what I think Jesus is saying about the post-resurrection validity of  marriages performed on earth.  Your mileage may vary. :)
Peir-Yuan Yeh asks:  >I wonder if the OT is not exactly like Jewish history.  Are they the same >or part of them are the same?  How about Torah? Are the first five books >of OT as the same as Torah?????  Yes, yes, and yes.  Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament and as shown by archaeology are the same.  Kings, revivals, Temples, and all.  The Torah, as far as I know, is the five books of Moses.  Then come the Prophets (all the Prophets, plus Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings) and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ecclesiates, Song of Songs, 1&2 Chronicles, Job).  And the veracity of Isaiah, which you quoted to your Moslem friend is quite well known.  A complete manuscript exists that dates back to past 200 BC, and is kept in a Museum in Israel.  It was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which greatly enhanced our knowledge of the veracity of the Old Testament, as they date back to around the time of Christ, whereas before, the oldest complete manuscript in Hebrew was from around 900 AD.  Your Moslem friend is sorely mistaken, but understandably so.  If Jesus was crucified, and atoned for our sins, he must have been God, for only the death of God could atone for the sins of all humanity.  And as Isaiah predicts, the messiah will be called "the mighty God."  And if he was God, then he must have rose, for as St. Paul wrote, it was not possible that death could hold him.  And if Jesus rose from the dead, your Moslem friend would have little reason to be a Moslem.  Which is why he denies the authenticity of the Old Testament.
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? > >Frank >--  >"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out > of a thousand."  JOB 9:3   Hi Frank:  I've read it a couple of times and I think that it is excellent. Christiandom has needed this book for some time now. I suggest that *every* Christian read it.  According to Hank, they printed 15 times more than Harvest House usually prints for the first printing, and it still sold out in the first week. It is in it's second printing, and most Christian book stores have waiting lists. You can order it directly from CRI at 1-800-443-9797.
Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...  I've been wondering if anyone would ever ask the question,  Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are muslims?  Can/Does God use those who are not following him to accomplish tasks for him?  Esp those tasks that are punative?
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."  Acts 1:8
In article <Apr.21.03.24.19.1993.1271@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes: >On the question, "Does God hear the prayers of sinners?" we need to >distinguish. >If we say that He never hears the prayers of any who have sinned, we >make pointless all prayers by anyone born less than 19 centuries >ago. >But if we consider the prayers of the impenitent sinner, of someone >who says, "Lord, I want you to do this for me, but don't expect me >to change my way of life," that is a different matter.   I have no doubt that God hears everybody's prayers. However, He does things His way, i.e. things will happen only if it is His will.  Now if the question really is "Does God grant everybody's wishes ?" then you'll get a brutal shot of reality similar to when you didn't get that toy you wanted for Christmas. You just cannot expect to get everything you want in this world.  --
tcsteven@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens) writes:  >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?  If I am not mistaken, the Jewish family names Cohen, Kahn, etc. are considered to be legitimate indicators of descent from Aaron. The family names Levi, Levene, etc. are considered to be legitimate indicators of descent from Levi. The main legal issue is the purification of the priesthood, which is supposed to involve finding the ashes of of the red heifer last used for this purpose 2000 years ago. _______________________________________________________________________________
mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:  > ...the computer is not a fantasyland where one's responsibilities > disappear.  The people on the net are real; slander and deception carried > out by net are just as wrong as they would be if carried out on paper > or face to face.  Well said, Michael!  The Catholic traditon has a list of behaviours called the Spiritual  Works of Mercy:  admonish the sinner instruct the ignorant counsel the doubtful comfort the sorrowful bear wrongs patiently forgive all injury pray for the living and the dead (yes, I know there is some controversy                             on this and I don't want to argue about it.)  These are all things that have a direct application to usenet.  People  ask questions and express doubts.  Some are in need of comfort or  prayers.  Imagine what would happen to flame wars if we bore wrongs  patiently and forgave injuries.   I would add that it is probably more  appropriate to do any admonishing by private email than publicly.
>>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways: >>       Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of   >>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still   >>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives   >>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by   >>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't   >>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is   >>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?  Short reply:  We can never achieve perfect health, yet we always strive for it.   We don't seek to do God's will because we're forced to, we follow His way  because His way is best.  The reason it's hard is because we are flawed, not  because He's unreasonable.  But we seek to follow His way because we want to  improve ourselves and our lives.
09 Apr 93, Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik writes to All:   >> "We suspect that's because one party to the (environmental)  >> dispute thinks the Earth is sanctified.  It's clear that much  >> of the environmentalist energy is derived from what has been  >> called the Religious Left, a SECULAR, or even PAGAN fanaticism  >> that now WORSHIPS such GODS as nature and gender with a  >> reverence formerly accorded real religions."  (EMPHASIS MINE).   SHK> First of all, secular and pagan are not synonyms.  Pagan, which is  SHK> derived from the latin paganus, means "of the country."  It is, in  SHK> fact, a cognate with the Italian paisano, which means peasant.  SHK> Paganism, among other things, includes a reverence for the planet and  SHK> all life on the planet -- stemming from the belief that all life is  SHK> interconnected.  So, rather than be something secular, it is something  SHK> very sacred.  I would go further, and say that much of the damage to the environment has been caused by the secular worldview, or by the humanist worldview, and especially by the secular humanist worldview.  This is not to say that ALL secular humanists are necessarily avid destroyers of the environment, and I am sure that there are many who are concerned about the environment. But at the time of the Renaissance and Ref ormation in Western Europe man became the centre, or the focus of culture (hence "humanism"). This consciousness was also secular, in the sense that it was concerned primarily with the present age, r ather than the age to come. Capitalism arose at the same time, and the power of economics became central in philosophy. This doesn't mean that economics did not exist before, simply that it began to dominate the conscious cultural values of Western European society and its offshoots. This cultural shift was, in its later stages, accompanied by industrial revolutions and the values that justified  them.  There was a fundamental cultural shift in the meaning of "economics" - from the Christian view of man as the economos, the steward, of creation to the secular idea of man as the slave of economic forces and powers. There were denominational differences among the new worshippers of Mammon. For some the name of the deity was "the free rein of the market mechanism", while for others it was "the dialectical forces of history". But in both the capitalist West and the socialist East the environment was sacrificed on the altar of Mammon. The situation was mitigated in the West because thos e who were concerned about the damage to the environment had more freedom to oppose what was happening and state their case.  Steve
mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:  >saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steve A. Ward) writes:  >>dan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >[Dan's question about Mormon Temple rituals deleted for brevity] >>  >>Just thought I would interject this, and I believe you Dan when you say >>that you don't mean to offend:  For us LDS temple goers, the temple >>ceremonies are very sacred.  So much so that anyone who goes there >>promises never to divulge them.  So how much can you trust someone >>who is telling you about the cerermony?   >One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the >temple rituals secret.  There are lots of sacred things in >Christianity, including the Sacred Scriptures themselves, but there is >nothing secret about these things.    Is it appropriate for the Lord not to reveal certain  things before the world (i.e., publish them widely)?  These things sacred to Himself.  He may place any  pre- or post-conditions He feels are necessary.  Moreover, there are precedents in scripture where knowledge of sacred things is withheld:  1. After the Transfiguration Jesus instructed Peter, James, and John to "tell the vision to no  man, until the Son of man be risen again from  the dead" (Matt. 17:9).   If we were living at the time of Savior, there would be no (public) record of this event.  2. A faithful friend of Paul experiences a vision  of "paradise" when he "heard unspeakable words,  which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Cor. 12:4). This person heard something which Paul can not  write to the Corinthians (and us).  3. There is an incident recorded in the Book of Mormon where words uttered by "babes" were  "forbidden that there should not any man write them (3 Nephi 26:16, the entire text follows for those of you without access to the BOM).  3 Nephi 26:16 Behold, it came to pass on the morrow that the  multitude gathered themselves together, and they both saw and heard these children; yea, even  babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous things; and the things which they did utter were forbidden that there should not any man write them.  Some LDS scholars speculate that these words which could not be written are the sacred portions from temple we are to withhold from  the world (but it could be something else).  >I >can understand why Mormons would limit temple access to only faithful >Mormons, but I have never understood the emphasis on shrouding temple >ritual in mystery.    There is much we can discuss about the temple  ordinances.  We can discuss regarding baptisms and other vicarious ordinances for the dead. We can discuss certain concepts regarding the endowment ("the ritual"). However, there are certain elements I can not discuss with anyone (including other saints) outside of the temple. As a portion of the endowment, we receive the tokens and signs that will permit us access to Heaven.  I must keep this knowledge sacred  and respect the conditions under which it is revealed to me.