waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
D. Andrew Kille writes:  >Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in >the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important >pronouncements >of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the  >feminine into the Godhead.  Which means he has absolutely no idea about what the Assumption is.  However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no way God or even part of God or equal to God.  The Assumption of our Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in Heaven.  Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to any of the previously mentioned personages.  Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.
[The following is my comment on an article by Desiree Bradley.  --clh]  >By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me >that he is claiming to be Christ.  Koresh did originally claim to be the Christ, but then backed off and said he was a prophet.  The latest news at 8:00 CDT from Waco is that the feds broke through a wall of the compound with a tank.  No news besides that at this time.
Paul Fortmann submitted a sermon by Peter Hammond on PRAYING FOR JUSTICE that spoke of the positive value of the Imprecatory (Cursing) Psalms.  In this connection, I recommend to the membership the book REFLECTIONS ON THE PSALMS, by C S Lewis, with special reference to the chapter on "Cursing in the Psalms."
Hi!  	Anyone know anything about the Interdisciplinary Bible Research Institute, operating out of Hatfield, Pa?  	I'm really interested in their theories on old-earth (as opposed to young earth) and what they believe about evolution.  	Thanks, 		In the Master,  		Charley.   --        Seek God and you will find, among other things,                           piercing pleasure.                Seek pleasure and you will find boredom, disillusionment                               and enslavement.                                        John White (Eros Defiled).
In article <Apr.10.05.31.46.1993.14368@athos.rutgers.edu>, luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma) writes: > In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>   >  > "Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to   > tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being   > burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a   > scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,   > bone, and anything else that they could find attached to it.  You would be   > stood facing a wall, with nothing to protect you.   ... > scream out in agony that your raw back was being torn at again.  You would   > say to yourself: `All this for a lie?'  And you had 37 more coming. >  > "At the third hit you would scream out that it was all a lie, beg for them   > to stop, and tell them that you would swear on your life that it had all   > been a lie, if they would only stop...."  No one was ever flogged, beaten, burned, fed to the lions, or killed in any other way because of a belief in the resurrection - sorry to disappoint you. The idea of resurrection is one which can be found in a host of different forms in the religions of antiquity.  The problem was not the resurrection which was a mediorce issue for a tiny fragment of the Jewish population  (the Saducees) but was a non issues for everyone else.  The real problem was that Christians were pacifist and preached there was only one god.  When the state operates by a system of divinitation of the emperor -  monotheism  becomes a capital offense.  The Jews were able to get exemption from this, and were also not evangelistic.  Christians were far more vocal, and gentile, and hence dangerous and were therefore targets of persecution.  Also since Christians were a relatively powerless group, they made good scapegoats as is seen by Nero's blaming them for the burning of Rome.  Let's not cloud the issues with the resurrection.  randy
Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those  who love him, who are called according to his purpose.   Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.  We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?
Arthur Clarke may have quoted the comment about knowing you're to be hanged in the morning concentrating a man's mind wonderfully, but the source of the comment is Samuel Johnson.  (Pardon me if you already knew that.)
The story I related is one of the seven apparitions approved by our Church as worthy of belief.  It happened in La Salle, France.  The moral lesson of the story is:  The Lamb of God has been sacrificed and His blood has  been used to cleanse us of our sins every moment as God perceives worthy of being done in Heaven.  Mary weeps for The Lamb and for the rest of her offsprings.  This will continue while we  disobey God or sin against Him.  Mary, as a messenger,  has been given the task to make us be 'aware' of the evil serpent (communism, wars, famine, unfaithful, disobedience to God, etc.) running after the rest of her offsprings.    The children who went astray by disobedience led by the dragon is  brought back by her peace and loving messages, reparations for sins,  to obey God's commandments and be more worthy to be in the presence  of The Lamb.  As she was conceived without sin to be worthy of bearing the Son of God in her womb, Mary has been preparing us, the Church, the Body of Christ, for His second coming (making sure we are  protected from the dragon).  Also, she has been preparing the new  Eden, by reversing the deed of the ancient Eve.  The new Eden will be the sanctuary of the righteous as judged by Christ in His next coming.      I relate the story again:     I believe this and Mary, in one of her apparitions       in 19th or 20th century, she appeared to these           two children who tends goats and cows (I forgot          the exact place).  She was  weeping and telling the      children that she is afraid she's "going to lose her     Son's arm".  She is mourning too for these               townfolks because it was their fault that there          would be drought in their harvest; not much good         food again this year as it was last year.                                                                         Mary tells the children:                             *    Most of the townfolks in this place worked whole    * *    week even on Sundays when they should be in church  * *    honoring God.  These townfolks swears and           * *    uses her Son's name in bad words.  That is          *     why her Son's arm is so heavy in pain.                   Then she asked them if they pray.  The children          said "hardly".  She asked them to pray every             morning and night.  When the children went back          from work they had to tell somebody about this.          When the news was spred and after thorough           *    investigation of the incident, the townfolks        * *    were converted and faith and obedience to God       * *    were restored in their community.                   *   Once again, the Lamb succeeds.
In article <Apr.16.23.18.04.1993.1876@geneva.rutgers.edu> rob@ll.mit.edu writes: >I think it was Lewis who said that in a wedding, it's the principals   >that marry each other; the church and the state are present merely as   >witnesses. > >[This is not just Lewis -- it's a summary of standard Catholic >theology.  However this doesn't mean that the presence of those >witnesses is optional, except in odd situations like the standard >desert island.  --clh]  	I originally wrote to the person who asked this question personally, but decided to post the information I had on the topic.  	I spoke to the pastor of my parish (Catholic) recently,  by coincidence, on this subject.  His explaination was that  while it is possible for a couple to marry without the presence of a priest, it is important to have it recognized by the  Church as soon as it is possible.  Because the Church  recoginizes itself as a community of believers, members of the church, to some degree, are to be held accountable to each other.  To be less hypothetical than that mythical couple on the desert island, there are many places in the world that do not have priests availible for marriages on a regular basis.  Therefore, couples get married without the priest being present, but get the priest to testify to their marriage when one comes through the area.    	I remember a religion teacher in high school saying that the marriage ceremony is not for the benefit of the couple as much as it is for the benefit of the community.  Thus, married couples have some responsibility to the community to stay married, as divorce sets a bad example for the community.  Also, the couple has vowed to become one with one another--the community should be able to rely on that  couple to be as one.  	While couples may marry without witnesses, they  may NOT get anulments without a priest present.  An  anulment is simply an admission of the church that what they had declared a marriage was not, in fact, a marriage at all, for whatever reason.  So don't start getting married in the back seat of a station wagon and giving yourselves anulments a half-hour later!!  	I tend to agree with the response back there that said couples become married as soon as they consumate their marriage, but I would add that couples should consider their marriage consumated if they have sex, whether or not they intended to be married, assuming they were both willing partners to the sexual act.  The couple must be prepared to raise any children they may have as a result of that sexual act with the benefit of both parents.  Sex IS a commitment, I believe, in God's eyes.  	But I'm digressing....  			God be with you,
In article <May.9.05.42.00.1993.27592@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes: >easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:  >>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago >>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven >>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot >>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it >>originate?  >	The quick answer:  Revelation 12:7-9   And as someone mentioned earlier, from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, satan was apparently kicked out for three times asserting his own will, "I will".  Hmmm...pro-choice looks kinda creepy here.
Hello,  I'm writing a paper on the role of the catholic church in Poland after 1989.  Can anyone tell me more about this, or fill me in on recent books/articles( in english, german or french). Most important for me is the role of the  church concerning the abortion-law, religious education at schools, birth-control and the relation church-state(government). Thanx,
In article <May.11.02.36.27.1993.28065@athos.rutgers.edu> biz@soil.princeton.edu writes:  >Who is the "atheist's prayer" being said to?   My roommate, the atheist, says "to anyone out there who might be  listening."
In article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: >I have seen the claims, but I don't know if there are any >authenticated cases of people making prolonged speeches in >real languages they don't know. From my observations, "speaking >in tongues" in practice has nothing at all do with this.  I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english). Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues". The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can only hear himself speaking in his own language.  Works everytime. 8-) Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd witness a real miracle.  --
Jesus isn't God ? When Jesus returns some people may miss Him ?  What version of the Bible do you read Mike ?  Jesus is God incarnate (in flesh) . Jesus said, 'I and the Father are one.'  Jesus was taken up to heaven after His 40 day post-resurrection stint and the angels who were there assured the apostles that Jesus would return the same way and that everyone will see the coming. That's why Jesus warned that many would come claiming to be Him but that we would know when Jesus actually returns.   These are two very large parts of my faith and you definitely hit a nerve :-)
|whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:                |                                                                          |> 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.                         |                                                                          |Your logic is falty.  If Christianity is a DRUG, and once we die we       |die, then why would you be reluctant to embrase this drug so that         |while you are alive you enjoy yourself.                                   |                                                                       Pardon the harshness that follows...  Once, I told a cradle christian: Please do not take advantage of Jesus or anybody for the sake of your own (selfish) realization or search for true faith/religion/belonging/'being in'/fear of hell/vanity/etc.   Instead of serving yourself, _we must be serving Him_.   *Until you have comprehended this truth, you are only doing things for your  own egoism.*  Let us not use Jesus, our religion, the Bible, anything or anybody as a means of escape or getting ecstatic or high. We are God's children and we must have a true and authentic relationship with our Father with obedience, faith, hope and  love and works (the last as the most important).  Beware of our 'materialistic', 'worldly' and 'selfish' motives.   Atheists have this ground against us and I believe they are right about *some* who call themselves 'christians'.
Dear fellow netters,  From time to time a term like 'Oneness Pentecostals' (or something similar) has occurred in posts to this group. I also know that there is a movement called something like 'Jesus alone.'   I believe in the Trinity and have no plans to change that, but reently I was made aware that there is at least one person within our church who holds the view that there is no trinity. In the near future we will discuss this item, and I feel that I shall ask you, my friends on this group, for background information.  Can anybody tell me the basic reasons for holding a belief that there is only Jesus? And vice versa: The foundations for the Trinity?  I shall appreciate both quotes from the Bible and historical development.  Thank you all.  In Him,  Bjorn
"CHRISTIANITY IN CRISIS"                                     by: Hank Hanegraaff             "Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin.             Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command."                                        -Dr. Walter Martin   Dr. Walter Martin personally selected Hank Hanegraaff to succeed him as President of the Christian Research Institute -- the largest  evangelical counter-cult organization in the world. In this skillful,  careful treatment of an explosive subject, Hanegraaff documents and  examines how the beliefs of the Word of Faith movement clearly  compromises and confuse the essentials of the historic Christian  faith. For the first time ever, this large and influential movement is legitimately labeled as cultic.  In this book, Hanegraaff discusses such leaders of the Word of Faith  movement as E.W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of "another gospel"  (Gal 1:6-9) (Kenneth E. Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Frederick K.C. Price, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, Paul (David)  Yonggi Cho, Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle, Morris Cerullo, and Paul and  Jan Crouch).  The book is now available through Harvest House Publishers and should be in most Christian Book Stores soon. You can order a hard-back copy  through CRI for $14.99 by calling 1-800-443-9797 and avoid retail  mark-ups.  The Christian Research Journal, which is a quarterly publication by CRI  has an article in it's most recent issue just released called, "What's  Wrong With The Word Faith Movement?" This is a good article that will  inform you of each of the teachers above, and tide you over until your  book arrives. If you are interested in receiving the Journal yourself,  you can order it from CRI at the number above for $14 a year. It is the  best source of the most-accurate and well-researched info in Christiandom  today.
Cloak yourself in God's sustaining and abiding love. Pray, pray, pray. Pray for your brother, that he will assume the Godly role that is his. Pray for your sister-in-law, the what ever is driving her to separate your brother and herself from the the rest of the family will be healed. Pray for God to give you the peace in the knowledge that you may not be able to 'fix' it. From your description it would appear that it will require devine intervention, and the realization by your brother as to what his responsibilities are. Seek Godly counsel from your pastor, or other spiritually mature believer. Know always that He is akways there as a conforter, and will give you wisdon and direction as you call on Him.
In response to alleged circular reasoning concerning the morality of       homosexuality, clh poses the following challenge:  >In order to break the circle there's got to be some other >reason to think homosexuality is wrong.  I answer,  The circle is simple to break.   The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is immoral.  This teaching is raw, impassionate, unassailable dogma.  That closes the argument for me.   --  Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock  Catechist gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu
scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:  >"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently,  >often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality... >but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that >statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.  >Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed >since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not  >something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see >what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the  >stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so  >strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate >the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and   That is an assumption on your part.  Where is your proof that one always will degenerate into hating the sinner, because he hates the sin.  I am reminded of the Civil Rights movement in America.  It is true that many individuals hated the proponents of racism.  It is also true that many  individuals hated segregation and discrimination with their whole heart and never degenerated into hating the individuals who practiced it.  Dr. King's message was this.  Love the individual, the loving of the individual would transform him into a friend.  However, this did not take away his hatred for segregation.  His hatred for injustice.     >In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our  >neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he  >commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians >supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one >way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We >need to ask God to help us with our own sin, and to help those we love  >with theirs. Only love can conquer sin...hatred has no place. The best way to >love someone is to pray for them.   I would ask, "Did John the Baptist practice love when he criticized the Jewish Leaders of his day?"  Did Jesus Practice love when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple?  We must have at least a distase for sin.  We must in order to fight it in  ourselves.  Also we must be ready for the call from God to call sin by its right name.  Jesus loved everyone, but he called sin by its right name.  It is true that love for others is to guide every step of our walk, but it is also true that sometimes the love for God calls us to stand up for truth.  -- "Competition is the law of the jungle.  Cooperation is the law of civilization."  --  Eldridge Cleaver
In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes: >In article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: >>I have seen the claims, but I don't know if there are any >>authenticated cases of people making prolonged speeches in >>real languages they don't know. From my observations, "speaking >>in tongues" in practice has nothing at all do with this. > >I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak >only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english). >Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues". >The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly >in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can >only hear himself speaking in his own language. >  There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which are problematic.  It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling to me.  I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing the talking.  And when you pray, you pray to God.  And the Spirit is God.  So, the Spirit is talking to Himself.  Which is why I only go by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.  Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels" used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context.   Some would then assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.  Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.  So why do these supposed angelic tongues all sound different FROM ONE ANOTHER?  It's disturbing to think that some people find ways to  justify jabbering.  But I'll buy the idea that someone could talk in a language never learned.  Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.