waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
All of the arguments concerning the Sabbath ought to make the point pretty clear - anyone outside of the Catholic or Orthodox orAnglican or Monophysite churches ourght to worship on Saturday if they are really sola scriptura.  Otherwise, they are following a law put into effect by the Church, and only the above Chruches really recognize any power of the Chruch to do so.  Andy Byler  [You will note that nothing in the FAQ said anything about the Church establishing or changing a law.  The argument against the Sabbath is that it is part of the ceremonial law, and like the rest of the ceremonial law is not binding on Christians.  This argument is based on Paul's letters, Acts, and in a more general sense, Jesus' teachings.  Further, most people argue that Scripture shows worship occuring on Sunday, and Paul endorsing it.  I understand that these points are disputed, and do not want to go around the dispute one more time.  The point I'm making here is not that these arguments are right, but that the backing they claim is Scripture.  Accepting the principle of "sola scriptura" does not commit us to obeying the entire Jewish Law.  Acts 15 and Paul's letters are quite clear on that.  I think even the SDA's accept it.  The disagreement is on where the Bible would have us place the line.  By the way, Protestants do give authority to the church, in matters that are not dictated by God.  That's why churches are free to determine their own liturgies, church polity, etc.  If you accept that the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, then the day of worship falls into the category of items on which individual Christians or (since worship is by its nature a group activity) churches are free to decide.
On 20 April, Stephen McIntyre writes:   > I would rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in  > Heaven knowing that even one man would spend his "eternal life"  > being scorched for his wrongdoings....  Stephen, I suspect that when you and I use the word "Hell," we have different concepts in mind. When you encounter references to Heaven in terms of crowns and harps and golden streets, I trust that you do not suppose (or suspect Christians of supposing) that the golden streets are to be taken literally, still less that they are what the concept of Heaven is all about. Why then should you suppose that about the "fires" of Hell?      Have you read the novel ATLAS SHRUGGED? Do you remember the last description of James Taggart, sitting on the floor beside the Ferris Persuader? This comes close to a description of what is meant by Hell in my circles. If the image of fire is often used in this connection, there are two reasons that occur to me.      The first reason is that it conveys the idea of Hell as something that any rational being would earnestly wish to avoid (as any rational being would wish to avoid the fate of James Taggart -- but the latter image is meaningful only to those who have read ATLAS SHRUGGED, a smaller audience than those who have played with matches).      The second reason is the history of the Hebrew word "Gehenna," one of the words translated "Hell" in the New Testament. It refers to the valley of Hinnon, outside Jerusalem. In early days, it was a place where the Canaanites offered human sacrifices (burned alive) to Molech. Later, it was made a garbage or refuse dump, where fires burned continually, consuming the trash of the city of Jerusalem. "To be cast into Gehenna" or "to burn in Gehenna" thus became a metaphor for "to be rejected or discarded as worthless."  Lest you think that identifying Hell with the fate of James Taggart is my own private fancy, I commend to you the book THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C S Lewis. It discusses Heaven (no harps) and Hell (no flames). It is shorter than ATLAS SHRUGGED, and available at most bookstores and libraries.
rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu (Robert Golder) writes:  >The movie version >of "The Last Temptation of Christ" was so awful that practically no one >would have seen it, or been influenced by its message, had not >conservatives loudly protested its distribution.  They unwittingly >created a larger market for the movie.  In many places, Christians were sucessful in their attempts to get the films banned, or at least given a very restrictive  showing.  I have no problem with Christians burning their own pieces of art (though I find it a tragic waste). I do however have a  problem with their attempts to censor what I may or may not view.  P.
>As the moderator noted, I think you mean the Assumption.  Catholics >believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary went to Heaven body *and* soul at >the end of her life.  This is unusual because the normal course of >events is for your body to decay in the grave and stay that way until >the Resurrection of the Dead.  Well, it wasn't that way for Enoch and Elijah, both of whom were translated directly into heaven.  It's beyond my grasp why some object that Mary, who was far greater than either Enoch or Elijah, should not benefit from the same privelege they recieved.  She was after all, Mother of God, full of grace, and immaculate.  >Historically, belief in the Assumption can be found in the writings of >St. Gregory of Tours (late 6th century).  And in St. Germain of Constantinople and St. John of Damascus, and in St. Andrew of Crete, among others.  And it should be noted that the Monophysite Chruches of Egypt and Syria also hold to this belief as part of divine revelation, even though they broke away from the unity of the Chruch in 451 AD by rejecting the Council of Chalcedon.  It might be argued by some Protestants that the Catholics and Orthodox made this belief up, but the Monophysites, put a big hole in that notion, as they also hold the belief, and they split from the Chruch before the belief was first annunciated in writing (as far as is known, much has been lost from the time of the Fathers).
In article <May.13.02.31.16.1993.1569@geneva.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes: >Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity? >Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex >completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others, >to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong, >etc?  If not, why not?  Heterosexuals abstain all the time. >(It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders >to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)  The biblical arguments against homosexuality are weak at best, yet Christ is quite clear about our obligations to the poor. How as  Christians can we demand celibacy from homosexuals when we walk by homeless people and ignore the pleas for help?  Christ is quite clear on our obligations to the poor.  Thought for the day:  MAT 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
In article <Apr.12.03.45.11.1993.18872@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes: >mike@boulder.snsc.unr.edu (Mike McCormick) writes: > >> Not honoring our wives can cause our prayers to be hindered: >>         prayers may not be hindered.  I Peter 3:7 > >One interpretation I've heard of this verse is that it refers to the sin  >of physically abusing one's wife.  The husband is usually physically  >stronger than his wife but is not permitted to use this to dominate her.   >He must honor her as his sister in Christ.  This would therefore be an  >example of a specific sin that blocks prayer. >Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org
Does anyone know whether the _Acta Sanctorum_, the huge multi-volume collection of Roman Catholic hagiography produced by the Bollandists, has ever been translated into English?  I'm working on the _Vita S. Dympnae_ and would love to be able to check my own translation against somebody else's.    Email replies preferred, unless this query turns out to be of general interest.
On Sunday 9 May 1993, Kenneth Engel writes (in substance):    We are told that the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.   We are told that Jesus paid the penalty, suffering in our stead.   But Jesus did not spend an eternity in Hell.  This objection presupposes the "forensic substitution" theory of the Atonement. Not everyone who believes in the Atonement understands it in those terms. For an expansion of this statement, send the messages    GET GEN04 RUFF    GET GEN05 RUFF    GET GEN06 RUFF    GET GEN07 RUFF   to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU  Note that the character after the "GEN" is a zero. If you want to read my opun from the beginning, start with GEN01.
> >> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG. >> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject >> themselves with jeezus and live with that high.    Why would you say "especially Christianity"?
Regarding David Wilkerson's prophecies.  While I'm not real sure of his credibility, I do remember a book he wrote, called A VISION or something like that.  He made a prediction that people who bought gold would be hurt financially.  At the time, gold was up to about $800; now it is less than half that.  This prediction stuck in my mind because a lot of people where I worked were buying gold.  The problem is, we tend to remember predictions that come true and forget ones that didn't (a la Jean Dixon).  Does anyone know if there any of his predictions, perhaps from the book I mentioned, that can pretty definitely be said to have not come true?
In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu>, kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) wrote: >  > Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:    > Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence. > This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God > Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence, > it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always > existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence. > This argument sounds like God does not exist, but meta-exists, > and from His meta-existent perspective, He created existence. > I think this is actually a nonsolution, a mere twist of words.  Always existing and being the source of the existence of all other beings is not problematic.  But, as you put, Being the source of "all" existence, including one's own, would mean that God came from nothing, a concept alien to Christianity and Theism.  It is better to understand the classical concepts of Necessary and Contingent existence.  God exists necessarily, always.  God created contingent beings.  This is a coherent solution to existence, so long as the concept of God is coherent.   > The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable > of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not > accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.  Not a very good answer.  If reason cannot by any means understand something then it is likely that "it" is a null concept, something not in reality.
In article <Apr.16.23.15.27.1993.1836@geneva.rutgers.edu> cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis) writes:  [it has to do with honoring the laws of the state, and] >also to do with how people will perceive us; i.e. it is culturally insensitive >to declare yourself married without going through a civil ceremony.)  I would go further: if a couple are unwilling to have their commitment publicly witnessed and recorded, that's prima facie evidence that the commitment isn't really there.
In article <May.9.05.41.02.1993.27540@athos.rutgers.edu> ab4z@virginia.edu (Andi Beyer) writes: >Which Version of the Bible do you consider to be the most >accurate translation?  Well, knowing Greek and Hebrew, I'm probably not as picky about translations as I would be if English translations were my only source of information. BUT...  (1) Any verse that comes out substantially different in different trans- lations is almost certainly unclear in the original.   (2) It is very bad practice to "shop" for a translation that fits your own doctrinal positions.  Personally, I still like the RSV.  NRSV and NASV are also very good.  I have a strong preference for editions that do _not_ indent the beginning of each verse as if verses were paragraphs.  The verse numbering is a relatively modern addition and should not be given undue prominence.
This is an annual time of prayer organized by the Focus on the Family organization.  If you have not heard about it on your Christian radio station or at your local church, call them and they may be able to give you the information.  Many cities in the San Francisco bay area have local coordinators organizing the time and the place to meet to pray.  In San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, people will be meeting at ~12:15pm at each city's City Hall.  Last year, I attended at the Mountain View city hall.  It was a very quiet and meaningful time of prayer.
Rob Butera asks about a book called THE LOST YEARS OF JESUS, by Elizabeth Clare Prophet.  I do not know the book. However, Miss Prophet is the leader of a group (The Church Universal and Triumphant) derived from the I AM group founded by a Mr. Ballard who began his mission in the 1930's (I am writing this from memory and may not have all the details straight -- for an old account, check your library for a bnook by Marcus Bach) after an eighteenth-century Frenchman appeared, tapped him on the shoulder, and offered him a cup of "cosmic essence." A major tenet of the movement is that there is a monastery in the mountains of Tibet from which a monk descends to the lower altitudes every few centuries to preach, and that all major religions have been founded by monks from this monastery. Typically, the Ballard family and their successors, the Prophet family (related by marriage, if I remember aright), base almost all their teachings on messages they have allegedly received by telepathy from Tibet. I should be surprised if the book you mention has any scholarly basis.
Joe Moore writes:   > Paul repeatedly talks about the "thorn" in his side. Some think  > it refers to lust, others pride, but who knows? Whatever the  > thorn was, apparently it was not compatible with Christianity,  > yet does that make his epistles any less?  Paul mentions his "thorn" (SKOLOPS, actually a sharp stake) in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9   + And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of  + revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of  + Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three  + times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me;  + but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my  + power is made perfectr in weakness."  He does not explain what it was, but it need not have been a moral problem.  One guess is that Paul had a disorder of the eyes. He ordinarily dictated his letters, and then added a personal note and his signature. At the end of the letter to the Galatians, he says, "See, I am writing in large letters with my own hand," or else, "See what a long letter I have written with my own hand." If the former translation is adopted, it seems that Paul could not write in the small script of a practiced writer, but needed to make his letters larger, and this suggests eye problems. Again, he says to the Galatians (4:13-15),   + You know that it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached  + the gospel to you at first; and although my condition was a trial  + to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an  + angel of God.... For I bear you witness that, if possible, you  + would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.  Perhaps this last line means simply, "You would have done anything for me, not withholding your most precious possessions (your eyes)." But in that case, we would expect some wording like, "If I had needed them." "If it were possible" sounds as though the bodily ailment was connected with his eyes.  William Barclay, in his volume on Acts, makes a more specific suggestion.  Before Paul preached in the highlands of Galatia, he had been preaching in the coastal areas of Asia Minor. If he had had a malarial attack while there, a doctor would have advised him to leave the low country and head for the hills. Malaria might well have given him both severe headaches and blurred vision.
On Thursday 6 May 1993, Dave Davis writes:   > I'm leaning... SIRACH... is more directly referenced by JAMES  > than JOB or RUTH is... in any NT verse I've seen.  It would help if you mentioned chapter and verse from SIRACH and from JAMES.  Job 5:13 ("He taketh the wise in their craftiness") seems to be quoted in 1 Corinthians 3:19.  James 5:11 ("You have heard of the patience of Job"), while not a quote, implies that James and his listeners are familiar with a story of a man named Job who exhibited exemplary patience. It is possible that the story they know is not that found in the Hebrew Bible, but rather another similar and related story. (One has the same problem with direct quotes.)  Again, Matthew 1:5 ("Boaz begat Obed of Ruth") tells us that Matthew knew a story about a woman named Ruth who married a man called Boaz and  became the ancestor of David. Since Ruth is not mentioned in the OT outside the Book of Ruth, it seems likely that Matthew was familiar with the book and respected it, and thought Ruth important enough to be one of the few women mentioned in the genealogy.  References like this do not prove that the NT writer considered his OT source inspired or inerrant or canonical. But neither do direct quotes.
In <Apr.10.05.30.16.1993.14313@athos.rutgers.edu> jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:  >I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my >wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last few >years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's >driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is >that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how  >to do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we  >present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.  [ . . . ]  Having lived through the kicking and screaming in the 60s and 70s as the Catholics were invited to participate in the liturgy instead of counting their rosary beads during Mass, I find this comment interesting.  There is a _massively_ longer tradition for proclaiming the Passion accounts without active participation.  If you know the Latin, one really beautiful way to hear the Passion is it's being chanted by three deacons:  the Narrator chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants in the bass, and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor. This is actually the basis for the common proclamation of the Passion that John would prefer.  But there is always a judgement call based on pastoral considerations. Each pastor makes his own decisions (it isn't a church-wide conspiracy against participation).  The Palm Sunday liturgy, with its initial blessing and distribution of the palms and procession, is already getting long before you get to the Passion; some pastors feel that they should not make the people stand through that long narrative.  Also, the orchestrated proclamation with multiple readers and public participation in the crowd quotations runs longer than the single-reader proclamation --- in churches with multiple Masses for the Sunday, it might be necessary to go with the briefer options just to "get 'em in and get 'em out".  Each parish is different.  Catholics are no longer canonically tied to their geographic parishes.  It is possible that another Catholic parish in the Columbus area (based on the Ohio State address) has a liturgy closer to your preferences.  Or talk to some of your fellow parishioners and see how common your preferences are --- pastors generally ARE willing to listen to non-confrontational requests.  Though you probably should bring along a paramedic in case he reacts too strongly to the shock of people asked for a _longer_ Sunday Mass.  Perhaps the problem is that recent liturgical development hasn't follow the continuous evolution model (the accumulation of small changes, no single one of which is too hard to take) but rather the punctuated equilibrium model (things stay the same and we get accustomed to them, then the marked mutation hits).  {My apologies if I am mis-remembering the names of the evolutionary theories.}
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)?  Well, here is something I wrote some time ago in response to a similar question.  I hope it helps:  [Begin repeat of previous post]  As for the scripture mentioned I agree that it does seem to be a  problem, not only for eternal marriage but marriage in general.   Luke's version has Jesus saying that the children of this world  marry and are given in marriage but not those who will attain the kingdom of heaven.  It almost sounds like marriage disqualifies one for salvation.  (Matthew and Mark both omit this statement.)   I think the accounts are not as clear as they might be.  Let's have a look at the incident and see if we can come up with some reasonable ideas of what it means.  The scriptures involved are Mat 22:23-30, Mark 12:18-25, and Luke 20:27-36.  What happened was that the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection, thought they could trap Jesus.  They made reference to the "Leverite" marriage which required the brother of a man who died without children to take the widow to wife and raise up children.   The children would be considered children of the deceased, just as though the woman's first husband had fathered them.  It seems obvious from this that the woman was still considered in a way to be the wife of her first husband.  However, the Sadducees concocted a scene in which 6 brothers of the deceased each in his turn failed to father children by the widow.  They seem to imply that the Leverite marriage was equal to the first for they ask, "Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection?"  At this point it seems obvious that if she is anybody's wife, it is the first husband.  After all, had she borne children they would have been credited to him regardless of which brother was the biological father.  It is possible Jesus was refering to this when he says, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God." (Mat 22:29, compare Mark 12:24, phrase not in Luke's account).  Anyway, the Sadducees ask, "Whose wife will she be in the resurrection, seeing that all 7 had her?"  Jesus answer is that, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage..." (Mat 22:30) "When they rise from the dead they neither marry..." (Mark 12:25)  "They which are accounted worthy to obtain that world neither marry..." (Luke 20:35)  All 3 accounts go on to say, "but are as the angels in heaven" or the equivalent.  I find this last not very helpful since the Bible does not define angels nor give any idea what their life is like.  (Some ministers claim that they are sexless, different that humans etc. but I can find no Biblical support for this.)