waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.7.01.09.39.1993.14550@athos.rutgers.edu> iscleekk@nuscc.nus.sg (LEE KOK KIONG JAMES) writes: |   mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes: |   > My mom passed along a lengthy review she clipped regarding Robin Lane |   > Fox's book _The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible_, |... |   I've read the book. Some parts were quite typical regarding its |   criticism of the bible as an inaccurate historical document, |   alt.altheism, etc carries typical responses, but not as vociferous as |   a.a. It does give an insight into how these historian (is he one... I  |   don't have any biodata on him) work. I've not been able to understand/ |   appreciate some of the arguments, something like, it mentions certain  |   events, so it has to be after that event, and so on.   Robin Lane Fox is a historian and a gardener.  He has written several history books, perhaps a recent one you might remember is "The Search for Alexander".  He has also written or edited several books on gardening.
In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>, vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) wrote:  >  > 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant > moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His > truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance > of those absolutes."   					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e. regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?       They sound like one and the same to me.       And nearly every time I meet a christian (or for that matter, any other theist) who tries to convert me, I find this proven over and over again.       I see no wisdom whatsoever in your words                                          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?
In article <Apr.23.02.56.33.1993.3165@geneva.rutgers.edu>, andrew@srsune.shlrc.mq.edu.au (Andrew McVeigh) writes:  > The Bible's message is that we are to love all people, and > that all people are redeemable.  It preaches a message of > repentance, and of giving.  Unfortunately, all people have > deceitful hearts, and are capable of turning this message > around and contorting it in sometimes unbelievable ways. > This is also a fundamental Christian doctrine.  Andrew,     How I wish this were true, and how I long for the day in which it will be true.  But alas, it is not true of history.  The Bible does not have a  message -- it has messages.  And some of those are messages of repentance and giving, to turn the other cheek, and do unto the least of these.  But some of the messages are the complete opposite.  Like the isrealites order to  wipe out other tribes including women and children down to cattle, and  punished severely when they were less than complete about the job.  Like jews who are said to have cried out in Matthew, "His blood be upon our heads and our childrens heads" A verse quoted in every pogrom from the crusades to the holocaust.  Have these been misunderstood?  I think not.  They have only been understood too clearly.  It is essential that christians grasp firmly the good the bible teaches, the meek carpenter from Nazareth is a potent  symbol for how we should be, his teachings we must take to heart, but we cannot ignore the other material in the bible which is not to our liking and say those who live by that have misread it.  To say that is only to chose a point of interpretation and declare it normative.  Such can be done with the same legitmacy by anyone.  Instead we must let the text critique the text. Understanding that there is both good and bad in our sacred corpus, we test all things and hold fast to that which is good.  >  >  > p.s. I believe that a line of questioning like you presented > is, strangely enough, compatible with becoming a Christian. > Certainly Christianity encourages one to question the behaviour > of the world, and especially Christians.  I praise God for > Jesus Christ, and the fact that we can doubt our beliefs > and still come back to God and be forgiven, time and time > again. >   At the risk of sounding heretical (well ok, more heretical) I don't think that doubt is something which requires forgiveness, it is something which requires introspection and reflection.  If that is a sin, then there can be no salvation, for doubt is an inescapble part of being human.  Consider Job.  His friends had no doubt. Whereas Job had no doubt in himself but doubted the wisdom and justice of God.  When God finally did appear he  rebuked the friends and had job make sacrifices for them.  To be a Christian it to always have doubt, or not to have honesty.
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)  To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is this a myth).  Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are Christian.
04 Apr 93, David Cruz-Uribe writes to All:   DC> Also, what is Orthodox practice regarding communion?  I read  DC> a throw-away remark someplace that the Orthodox receive less  DC> frequently than Catholics do, but was is their current practice?  DC> Have their been any variations historically?  I think Orthodox practice varies from place to place, from parish to parish and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some parishes here in South Africa the only ones who receive communion are infants (i.e. children under  7). In our parish it is expected that one will have been to Vespers and confessional prayers the evening before, and that one will have been fasting. As we have to travel 70km to the church, we don' t receive communion every Sunday, but about every third Sunday.  Steve
In <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu> jprzybyl@skidmore.edu writes:  > I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a > MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and        Why should he have been any different "then"? Ozzy Osbourne, ex-singer and main character of the Black Sabbath of good ole days past, is and always was a devout catholic. Or so I've heard over on the alt.rock-n-roll.metal newsgroups, an' I figure those folks oughta know..
>From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)   >Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some >soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually >some Pope *will* straighten all this out.  But, on the other hand, >there is also unsoundness in this, in that, in the short term, the >Popes may indeed be wrong, and such Catholics are doing nothing to >help the situation by obeying them where they're wrong.  In fact, if >the situation is grave enough, they sin in obeying him.  At the very >least, they're wasting a great opportunity, because they are failing >to love Christ in a heroic way at the very time that He needs this >badly.  Joe;  Your logic excapes me.   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.  Bob  --  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>     \|/     <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <>< Bob Van Cleef              Peace -0- be      revc@garg.Campbell.CA.US The Land of Garg BBS        unto /|\ you           BBS (408) 378-5108 ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>      |      <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><
In article <May.9.05.38.07.1993.27316@athos.rutgers.edu> u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk (M.R. Mellodew) writes: >In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu>, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes: > >>            Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the >> One Who made us all. > >So does that mean that anyone who is a Christian to avoid Hell isn't really >a Christian at all? It sounds like it to me.  If that's the ONLY reason, I'd be inclined to doubt whether or not what they profess is Christianity.  The relationship of faith is based upon trust.  Fear and trust are generally incompatible.  If my only motivation is fear, is there room for trust?  If so, there's room for faith.   If fear precludes trust, then there can't be faith.  Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --
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.  I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it?  (Rom. 12.9 doesn't count, kids.)  The manner in which this little piece of conventional wisdom is applied has, in my experience, been uniformly hateful and destructive.
In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes: >I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a >lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents? >In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously >you aren't morally responsible for your actions.  But if you can contrive >to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies.  I think that if someone often has immoral dreams, like lustful dreams,  or dreams where you commit acts of violence, etc. etc. it may be a sign  that he has something sinful in his heart.  It may be the Holy Spirit's way of allowing the sinfulness that is in us to come to light so that we can pray about it and have it removed.  Generally, if one has a  pure heart, and sets his mind on things that are holy, he will be holy even when he dreams.  Dreams also can be from the Lord.  Joseph and Nebucadnezzar are two examples of people in the Bible who received dreams from the Lord.    Regarding out of body experiences, this is something that we have to be careful with.  What is called an OOBE can be spiritual in nature, especially if what one saw is the same as an experience witnessed by someone else. Christians should certainly avoid any occult activity that would generate an out of body experience.  Some things that might be called an OOBE might actually be from the Lord.  Paul wrote of what might of been an OOBE. In II Corinthians 12, he wrote of a spiritual experience of being caught up into the third heaven.  Is an OOBE truely an OOBE?  Does one really leave his body, or is he just seeing an image being shown to him by a spirit, be it a demon or the Holy Spirit?  I don't think it matters that much.  Paul could not tell.    Be that as it may, we should be careful not to open ourselves up to Satan to experience OOBE's.  We should not meditate and pretend we are in a  place until our spirits apparently float there.  This is dangerous.  If God wants to gice us what seems like an OOBE, then He can do that of His own sovereign will.  In the Bible, most often it seems that prophets are just taken up by God's sovereign will, and not because they are seeking an OOBE.  John was in the Spirit praying on the Lord's day when he was caught up in the visions he received.  Ezekial was talking with some Jewish leaders when he was caught up into the visions of God one time.  If God wants to take one of us up into a vision, he can do it. People should be careful not to open themselves up to evil spirits for the sake of a few thrills.
wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Bill Hovingh, LPTS Student) writes:  >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.  >I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could >someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it?  (Rom. 12.9 doesn't >count, kids.)  The manner in which this little piece of conventional wisdom is                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >applied has, in my experience, been uniformly hateful and destructive.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >billh  [underlining mine/Quean Lutibelle]   Yes, those who apply it hatefully would be better served if they if they could alter the Bible to reflect their views:  Scene 1:  A well in Samaria:  Woman:  But I have no husband. Jesus:  Yo!  Everybody!  Listen up!  Get your rocks ready!  We'll have         some good biblical fun.  Here she is whispering to me that         she doesn't have a husband, yet I know by my secret powers that         she has had five of them!  (You know how these Samaritans are!         And worse, she's living with a guy now that she's not even married         to.  Now I believe in loving her, and if you'll just raise up         those rocks like the bible allows and threaten her with a good         stoning, she'll understand how much we hate the sin but love         the sinner.   We must keep our priorities strait, lest folks         2,000 years from now misunderstand me and believe I canceled         all sin!  Scene 2:  Golgatha  2nd Thief:  You got a raw deal, man.  They didn't catch you doing anything             wrong like they caught me.  Bleeding Jesus:  Now, son.  Let me be real clear.  You say you did something             wrong, but are you repenting?  I need to be absolutely certain             cause if you repent, I have a nice room for you in heaven,             but if you think you might go thieving again, I have to             cancel your reservation.  It is nice of you to have pity on             me while I'm hanging here, but you must understand, this is             all an act; I'm not really hurting.  I'm God, you see.  And             the point of all this is to teach you to be perfect like me.             If you think a simple kind remark to me in suffering is going             to get you any favors, you'd better think twice!  But if you             will just REPENT, you will become a Fundelical in Good              Standing.  From all such Bad News, you have delivered us, Good God!  Thank you! Thank you!  Thank you!  Quean Lutibelle/Louie
"Larry" == Larry L. Overacker <shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com> writes:  I, not Dave Davis, wrote: > >The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's >history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the rest of >Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these books was >guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where this sort of >discussion ultimately ends.  Sorry, I put my foot in my mouth, concerning the church's history. It is correct to say that the Council of Hippo 393 listed the  deuterocanonical books among those accepted for use in the church, and that this was ratified by the Council of Carthage, and by Pope Innoent I and Gelasius I (414 AD).  Yet Eerdman's History of the Church says:   "At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.     The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew bible, was universally  received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and the cannot be therefore regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the aposteles."  "In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as *deutero* canonical, bearing a subordinate authority."  This history goes on to say that Augustine attended both the Council of Hippo and of Carthage.  It is interesting to note, however, the following footnote to the fourth session of the Council of Trent.  The footnote  lists various Synods which endorsed lists of canonical  books, but then says "The Tridentine list or decree was the first *infallible* and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures."  Which leads one to think that the RC canon was not official until Trent.  Thus my previous erroneous statement was not entirely groundless.  It is also interesting to note that the Council of Trent went on to uphold "the old Latin Vulgate Edition" of  the Scriptures as authentic.  Which, I would suppose,  today's Catholic scholars wish the Council had never said. Also the council made no distinction between deutero-canonical and canonical books--in contrast to (Eerdman's statement of) the fourth century views.
I just started reading the group. I was wondering if someone could re-post exactly what the Prophetic Warning to NYC was.  Thanks -jh
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."      Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
ragraca@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Randy A. Graca) writes:  :                                                               Consequently, : this verse indicates that she was without sin.  Also, as was observed at : the very top of this post, Mary had to be free from sin in order to be the : mother of Jesus, who was definitely without sin.  If the mother of Jesus had to be without sin in order to give birth to God, then why didn't Mary's mother have to be without sin in order to give birth to the perfect vessel for Jesus?  For that matter, why didn't Mary's grandmother have to be without sin either?  Seems to me that with all the original sin flowing through each person, the need for the last one (Mary) to have none puts God in a box, where we say that He couldn't have incarnated Himself through a normal human being.  My God is an all powerful God, Who can do whatever suits His purpose.  This includes creating a solar system and planet earth with the appearance of great age; providing a path through the Red Sea for the children of Israel that does not depend on the existence of a ridge of high ground and a wind blowing at the right speed and direction; and the birth of Himself from a normal sinful person without being tainted by her original sin.  I see far too much focus on the "objects" of religion and not nearly enough on the personal relationship that is available to all believers with the Author of our existence, without the necessity of having this relationship channeled through conduits to God in the form of Mary, Apostles and a Pope.  : Note that the idea of Mary being conceived without Original Sin, i.e. the : Immaculate Conception, is distinct from the idea of Mary not having sinned : during her lifetime, which is a separate doctrine and, I believe, also : held by the Catholic Church.  If Mary was born without original sin, and didn't sin during her lifetime, how is she any different from Jesus?  This means the world has had two perfect humans:  one died to take away the sins of the world;  the other gave birth to Him?  I would certainly want to see some scriptural support for this before I would start praying to anyone other than God.  Everything I have ever read from the bible teaches me that Jesus was and is the only sinless Lamb of God, not His mother, grandmother........  : Hope this is useful to you.  Very useful in helping me understand some of the RC beliefs. Thank you.
Are any readers of s.r.c. going to the Love Europe congress in Germany this July?
In article <May.13.02.30.13.1993.1529@geneva.rutgers.edu> aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes: >Bruce Webster writes: >>Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases >>holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have >>failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28  >Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18? >Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not >share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the >son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and >the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."  Actually in D&C 68:25-28 the parents are being held accountable for their own sins.  Specifically they are accountable for their failure to teach their children properly.  If I fail to teach my children that stealing is wrong then I am responsible for their theft if they later indulge in such behavior.
Gilligan = Sloth Skipper = Anger Thurston Howell III = Greed Lovey Howell = Gluttony Ginger = Lust Professor = Pride Mary Ann = Envy
In article <Apr.13.00.08.22.1993.28397@athos.rutgers.edu>   trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:  > Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, >      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic >      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values, >      thus all must be true...  Yep.  There's truth in all those religions, even in science.    Christianity doesn't claim to know it all.  It does claim certain   things are true though that contradict other religions' truth claims.    So they can't all be true.