waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.19.05.11.41.1993.29112@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:  > I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is > believeing blindly or not. .... If you decide in advance that your reason  > will act only on the evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut > reason off from any possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the > physical sphere  Someone said: 	"Thinking if I could see, I would believe. Then someone said
e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes: :  :   . :            It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never  :        given a legal definition of religion.  This despite the many  :        cases involving religion that have come before the Court.  :            Can anyone verify or falsify this?   :            Has any state or other government tried to give a legal  :        definition of religion?   According to the legal practices of today's America, I imagine the legal definition of religion, if defined, may resemble the following:  	"Any system of belief or practice to which people are committed 	for the benefit of society which must, in the opinion of secular 	thought, be isolated from political and educational influence."  	"Should any system of belief or practice to which people are 	committed be harmful or void of any benefit to society in the 	opinion of religious thought as defined in the previous paragraph, 	isolation of such from political and educational influence would 	constitute unreasonable censorship and an unlawful violation of 	civil rights."
In article <May.13.02.29.39.1993.1505@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes: > It was the manifestation of the spirit among the gentiles >that convinced Peter (Acts 10) that his prejudice against them (based on >scripture, I might add) was not in accordance with God's intentions.  I would just like to point out that the particular command not to eat or fellowship with Gentiles is not found in the Old Testament.  This was part of the "hedge built around the law."  It was a part of Peter's tradition, and not the Scripture.
smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:  >>Gerry Palo writes: >> > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of >> > repeated lives on earth.  >Doesn't it say somewhere "It is appointed to man once to die, >and then judgement?" I don't have a concordance here but I have >some dim memory that this appears *somewhere* in the Bible. >Given a fairly specific context for what judgement is, I'd say >that more or less decides the issue. >[Heb 9:27 --clh]  That depends on how this verse is read.  There are at least two meanings of the word "once".  1) only one time, and 2) at some other time (i.e. once upon a time).  Note that in the previous verse, the word "once" is used with the second meaning, and also in the following verse, "once" is again used with the second meaning. The Greek, I am sure, uses different words for each of the two meanings for the English word "once".  I am not a Greek scholar, but I'm sure someone here can verify which Greek word is used here for this meaning. If the second meaning is being used, that verse can be interpreted as:    - for it was once given for men to die (beginning with Adam), but      after this [gift of atonement offered by Jesus Christ] the judgement     [is made available], for now there is no longer death, but life     with Christ.
Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.  The meaning of my existence is a question I ask myself daily.  I live  in fear of what will happen when I  die.     I bet some of you are licking your lips now, because you think that I'm a person on the edge of accepting jeezus.               I was raised in a religious atmosphere, and attended 13 years of religious educational institutions..  I know the bible well. So well I can recognize many passages from memory.    <<****Strong opinions start here...****>>  1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced mental facilities, developed religious as a satisfiable solution to explain the unexplainable.  (For example the ancient Greeks believed that Apollo drove his chariot across the sky each day was real.  Due to the advancement of our technology, we know this to be false.    Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are  because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is  follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness." For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"  but i digress...   The other reason christianity flourishes is its infectious nature.  A best friend of mine breifly entered a christian group and within months, they set ministry guidelines for him which basicaly said this -->Priority #1 Spread the Word.   We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we die.        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.   It pities me how many millions of lives have been lost in religious wars, of which Christianity has had no small part.  When Christians see a "non-believer", they say that person is blind to the truth, but they cannot realize that it is _they_ who live with this mask of fakeness each day.  Jesus was just prophet #37696  who happened to have a large influence because at that time the Romans were (circa 69ad) dispersing the Jewish population and communities needed some sort of cohesive element to keep them strong in that time of dire need.  I must go.  These are but a few of my thoughts on Christianity.
JEK@cu.nih.gov ()  James Kiefer  writes:    (stuff deleted)      [First point. What they are doing is wrong, just as what Joseph's brothers did was wrong, just as what Judas did was wrong. They intend it for evil. If God somehow brings good out of it, that does not make them any less subject to just condemnation and punishment.      Second point. Of course, God will bring good out of it. But not the same good that He would have brought if the Serbians had refrained from the sins of robbery and rape and murder. Nor does the good He purposes excuse us from the duty of doing what is right.]
In article <Apr.9.01.11.00.1993.16923@athos.rutgers.edu> topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:  >Now, as to the suggestion that all prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical, >can you elaborate?  I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  How does the >suggestion relate to Isaiah's prophecy of the birth of Christ by a virgin?  >I don't see any cycles in that prophecy.  Maybe cyclical is not the best word.  That is one aspect of it.  In the case of the virgin birth prophecy, it applied to the then and there, and also prophetically to Christ.  The army that threatened the king would  cease to be a threat in a very short time.  Yet it also prophecied of  Christ.  Several prophecies that refered to Christ also had application at the time they were made.  "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" refers both to Israel, and prophetically to Christ.   "Why do the heathen rage" was said of David and also of Christ.    Another example would be the Scripture quoted of Judas, "and his bishoprick let another take."  Another example is something that Isaiah said of His disciples which is also applied to Christ in Hebrews, "the children thou hast given me."  How does the preterist view account for this phenomenon.  Link
In article <May.6.00.35.38.1993.15459@geneva.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org writes: >04 May 93, D. Andrew Byler writes to All: > > [On The Athanasian Creed] ... >Do you have any evidence that it is used by the Orthodox Churches? > >As far as I know it is purely Western, like the "Apostles' Creed". The >Orthodox Churches use the "Symbol of Faith", commonly called "The >Nicene Creed".  I have seen it used in an Orthodox church once, although I can't recall why. I found it odd, to say the least.  Also, I object to the statement that the Orthodox DELETE the filioque from the original form of the Creed.  The creed originally did NOT contain that phrase, and it is not present in the Greek original, which hangs by my desk.  Not intending to start a flame war.  We didn't need to delete what wasn't there.  Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --
In article <May.5.02.52.59.1993.28865@athos.rutgers.edu>, you write: |>  |> [Yes.  My comments were long enough that I don't want to repeat |> them here, but I'll send them via email back to the author. |> Certainly it was not intended to be a description of three similar |> deities, though I certainly see why it would look that way. |>  Thanks for the letter, your comments helped some.  As to the last comment, I certainly realize that it was not intended to sound that way.  I am still trying to understand *how* a spiritual being colud truly be one and three at the same time.  All of the descriptions of this are either Platonic or sound like special pleading (sort of, "they appear to be three seperate beings in all ways, but really they are one, trust me").  Neither of these is acceptible to me.  The fact is, so far the only descriptions of the trinity that makes any *sense* to me are the modalistic ones, such as Modalistic Monarchianism or "Economic Trinitarianism".  [I can accept that the three aspects are intrinsic to the nature of God, so I perhaps lean more towards the latter].  I am trying, here, to see if anybody can come up with another description that is both orthodox and believable.  --  sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)   or Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Eric ("Damien"?) was presenting his views on Christianity; I'll respond to a few of his points:  In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu>, gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes: |> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame |> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience. |>  |> <<****Strong opinions start here...****>> |>  |> 1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced |> mental facilities, developed religion as a satisfiable solution to |> explain the unexplainable.  (For example the ancient Greeks believed |> that Apollo drove his chariot across the sky each day was real.  Due |> to the advancement of our technology, we know this to be false.)  This is certainly a valid objection to religion-as-explanation-of- nature.    Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For example: why does the universe exist at all?  After all, the time-space world didn't have to exist.  Why does *anything* exist? And: is it possible for persons (e.g. man) to come into being out of a purely impersonal cosmos?  These questions which look at the real mysteries of life -- the creation of the world and of persons -- provide a permanent indicator that the meaning of life in the material world can only be found *outside* that world, in its Source.   |> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we |> die.       |>  |> 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.   When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.  But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks, it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and be animated by some enduring values.  With best wishes,
James Green writes:   > Can't someone describe someone's trinity in simple declarative  > sentences that have common meaning?  I offer him four attempts.  First is an essay by me (largely indebted to Attempts Two and Three), obtainable by sending the message GET TRINITY ANALOGY to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU  Second is a couple of books by Dorothy L Sayers: a play called THE ZEAL OF THY HOUSE, and a non-fiction book called THE MIND OF THE MAKER.  The play can be found in the book FOUR SACRED PLAYS, and also in various other collections, including one called RELIGIOUS DRAMA (Meridian Books) and one called BEST PLAYS OF 1937.  Third is the book MERE CHRISTIANITY by C S Lewis, particularly the last section, called "Beyond Personality".  Fourth is a book called THEOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS, by the Roman Catholic writer Frank Sheed. I will say that I do not find Sheed's approach altogether satisfying, but I know some persons whose minds I respect who do.
halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall) writes:  > 	But recently I read Peter Brown's _Body and Society_. It is very > well researched, and well written. But is raises some very upsetting > questions. The early Christians were weird - even more so than today's > carzy fundies. They had odd views on sex, odder views on the body,  > totally ludicrous views about demons, and distinctly uncharitable > views about other human beings.   If possible (last I heard, it was out of print but they were considering  reprinting) read Barbara Hambly's _Search the Seven Hills_.  It is  historical fiction, set in Rome at the time of the early Church.  She  captures the weirdness of the early Christians and yet gives glimpses of  the holiness too.  Some of their odd views make a lot more sense in the  context of the society they lived in.  I found it a remarkably positive  view of Christianity considering that the author is not a Christian  herself.  Another plus is that each chapter begins with an  original-source quote so that it makes a good starting point for serious  research.
In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes: > >I think you should give up the amatuer psysochology :). >... >	In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong. Problem is, >I will have to be _proven_ wrong. >	Do I sound "broken" to you?  Absolutely not.  I went through a "journey" of lukewarm Christianity, agnosticism, atheism, agnosticism, and now (although I know my faith is less than what it should be) Christianity again.  I think it's a path many of us take.
In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir, muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes: >of Faith (if you want to know, I feel that faith is intellectually >dishonest).   I'd appreciate some support for this statement.  I'm not sure it really makes sense to me.  >The ambiguity of religious beliefs, an unwillingness to take >Pascal's Wager,   I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager?  >	Do I sound "broken" to you?  I don't know.  You point out that your mother's treatment upset you, and see inconsistencies in various religions.  I'm not sure if that constitutes broken-ness or not.   It certainly consititutes  disillusionment.
>		- Mike Walker  >  >[If you are using the standard formula of fully God and fully human, >that I'm not sure why you object to saying that Jesus was human.  I >think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic >definition of humanity.  It's a consequence of the fall.  Jesus is >human, but not a fallen human.  --clh]  The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus are two different people who happened to be united in the same body temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox.  It believes that Jesus Christ was God (which is correct), that he was man (which is correct), that he was one person (which is correct), but that he had only one nature and one will and oen energy (which is heretical, the orthodox position is that he had two natures and two wills and two energies, both divine and human, though the wills were in perfect harmony).  That is what Mike is trying to get across, that while Jesus came in human form, Mike says He did not have a human nature or a human will.  In reality, he had both, though neither made him subject to original sin. It is interesting to note that the Monothelites were a reaction to this conflict and attempted to solve the problem by admitting two natures but not two wills or two energies.  It also was condemned, at a late council in Constantinople I believe.  Andy Byler
The last time we discussed homosexuality, I asked whether anyone could identify any other act besides homosexual intercourse that the Bible prohibited, but which might in some circumstances bring no apparent harm to anyone. Put another way, the question is whether homosexual intercourse is the only act that Christians are supposed to believe is immoral solely on the basis that God says it is, with no insight being offered as to *why* it is immoral. No one could answer my question in either form from the Bible. (I did get an interesting response based on Roman Catholic theology).  However, I think now that I can at least answer my first question. Link Hudson pointed me to it in his recent comments about sleeping with one's aunt. Incest is held to be immoral in every society, that is, there are some degrees of relationship where marriage (and thus, intercouse) is prohibited. The Bible is no exception. The trouble is that it may be difficult to see *why* a particular relationship qualifies as incestuous. Societies differ as to how they define incest. Genetic reasons are sometimes offered, but all the Biblical cases cannot be dealt with that way. Why can't a man sleep with his step mother--assuming that his father is dead and that he has "married" her? How does this case differ from the *duty* to marry one's brother's childless wife.  Are these two cases parallel? Does the Bible prohibit some incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages for the same reason, perhaps that God knows they are not good for us and yet we are incapable of understanding why.  P.S. Please don't bother writing me to tell me that I am a homophobe, as some did last time. My mind is not made up on these questions. You don't know whether I am homophobic or not. You don't know me. To call me or anyone else a homophobe without knowing the person may be as much an expression of bigotry as some homophobic remarks.
Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views  children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any  stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.  I'm especially  keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on  bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big genealogical  book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.  If this is an issue on which the  "official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both old  and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are  appreciated.
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.  IITimothy 2:24-26
Hi... I'm not a religious guy so dont take this as some kinda flame (thanx in advance)  I want to know why there are so many different versions of the bible? There is this version of the bible I have read about and on the front page it says: "....contains inaccurate data and inconsistencies."     					Thanx in advance... Shaz....  [I'm not sure quite what you mean by many different versions. The primary distinction in versions you see today is in the style of the translation.  It's pretty unusual to see significant differences in meaning.  There are a few differences in the underlying text.  That's because before printing, manuscripts were copied by hand.  Slight differences resulted.  There are enough manuscripts around that scholars can do a pretty good job of recreating the original, but there are some uncertainties.  Fortunately, they are generally at the level of minor differences in wording.  There are something like 3 or 4 places where whole sentences are involved, but with recent discoveries of older manuscripts, I don't think there's much uncertainly about those cases.  As far as I know, no Christians believe that the process of copying manuscripts or the process of translating is free of error.  But I also don't think there's enough uncertainty in establishing the text or translating it that it has much practical effect.  Whether the Bible contains inaccurate data and inconsistences is a hot topic of debate here.  Many Christians deny it.  Some accept it (though most would say that the inaccuracies involved are on details that don't affect the faith).  But this has nothing to do with there being multiple versions.  The supposed inconsistences can be found in all the versions.  I'm surprised to find a reference to this on the title page though.  What version are you talking about?  I've been referring to major scholarly translations.  These are what get referenced in postings here and elsewhere.  There have certainly been editions that are (to be kind) less widely accepted.  This includes everything from reconstructions that combine parallel accounts into single narrations, to editions that omit material that the editor objects to for some reason or the other.  The copyright on the Bible has long since expired, so there nothing to stop people from making editions that do whatever wierd thing they want.  However the editions that are widely used are carefully prepared by groups of scholars from a variety of backgrounds, with lots of crosschecks.  I could imagine one of the lesser-known editions claiming to have fixed up all inaccurate data and inconsistencies.  But if so, it's not any edition that's widely used.  The widely used ones leave the text as is. (Weeeeelllllll, almost as is.  It's been alleged that a few translations have fudged a word or two here and there to minimize inconsistencies.  Because translation is not an exact science, there are always going to be differences in opinion over which word is best, I'm afraid.)
From time to time I have made reference to a book called "The Two Babylons" which is a book written by Alexander Hislop (mid 1800's) about the Babylonian mystery religion and its flight through history.  I was unable to put it down the first time I read it, but others have found it dry.  It has numberable references and illustrations.  If you are interested in purchasing your own copy, you can call Moody Book Store @ (312)329-4352 and order it for $16.99 and they will ship it to you.      It is a good book just to get the reference titles for your own digs into the mystery religions.  I have found it invaluable for that purpose alone.  But for those who only want to skim the subject, it comes highly recommended.     Just a note to my RC brothers and sisters.  You may find this to be a diatribe or you may find it to be a test to the origin and true nature of the origin of RCism.  If you are offended by anything that asks hard questions about your denomination (as to whether or not it is "Christian") then perhaps you should just passover this offer.  To those who are a little more adventurous, go for it and later, please contact me with you reasons pro or con on the scholorship of this book.  I really would be interested.