waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.12.03.44.39.1993.18842@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes: >   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.  I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread. There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.
I seldom see any posts in this group. Is anyone out there in Christendom listening? If so, why don't we get some dialog going here?  Here's a topic to get things started. My daughter's Christian school sends home a weekly update on school related topics. This week they sent something *very* interesting. It was an article written by the leader of a national (US) Christian school organization about a trip he recently made to Jerusalem. While there, he was introduced to one of the rabbis who is working on a project to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. The article included photos of the many furnishings that have already been made in preparation for furnishing the rebuilt temple according to the specifications given in the Bible.   What was even more striking is the fact that the plans for the temple are complete and the group is only awaiting permission from the Israeli government before beginning the building. The other startling fact is the very recent archeological discovery that the original site of the temple is unoccupied and available for building. Previously it has been thought that the original site was underneath what is now a mosque, making rebuilding impossible without sparking a holy war.   Now it appears that nothing stands in the way of rebuilding and resuming sacrifices, as the Scriptures indicate will happen in the last days. Although the Israeli government will give the permission to start, I think it is the hand of God holding the project until He is ready to let it happen. Brothers and sisters, the time is at hand. Our redemption is drawing near. Look up!
In article <May.11.02.37.09.1993.28123@athos.rutgers.edu>, you write: |>  |> [I fear orthodox theologians have been overly in love with paradox, to |> the extent that well-meaning people think they've just flat-out |> confused.  There's no problem with things being both 3 and 1, e.g.  if |> the 3 are different parts of the 1.  ... |> But they're in some way |> different aspects, modes, or whatever, of one God.  If you accept |> economic trinitarianism, it's possible that you don't have any |> substantive difference with the standard view.  Is it possible that |> you just don't find the neo-Platonic explanation illuminating? |> --clh]  I would put it stronger than that.  I consider it nonsense.  Simply put, I do not see any way that a "Platonic essence" could have any *real* existance.  "Essence" in the Platonic sense does not have any referent as far as I can tell - it is just an imaginary concept invented to provide an explanation for things better explained in other ways.  So, to attribute an 'essence' to God is to attribute to him something that does not exist!!  Thus the orthodox Platonic formulation seems to leave the unity of God in limbo, since it is based on a non-existant 'essence', thus failing to avoid the very problem it was supposed to address.  Thus, to me, the unity of God must be primary, and the triality must be secondary, must be modal or aspectual (relating to roles, or to modes of interaction), since otherwise there is no meaning to saying God is one.  --  sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)   or Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Anni Dozier (dozier@utkux1.utk.edu) wrote: : After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it  : has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with  : Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think  : to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even : soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate. : Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted  : for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!                        Since when did conservative, protestant, old-time religion believers get an exclusive francise to christianity?  Christianity is, and always has been, a diverse and contentious tradition, and this group reflects that diversity.  I, fo one, am not ready to concede to _any_ group- be they "liberal" or "conservative", catholic, protestant, or orthodox, charismatic or not- the right to claim that they have _the truth_, and everyone else is not "christian."
jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship) writes:  [The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping "the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty reallly doesn't help much.  Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?]
In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu>, gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes: | Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says  | he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste  | my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it.  | In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me.
General question: Since the world was discovered to be round, the definition of Saturday is, if not ambiguous, at least arbitrary. How would someone answer this?  Also, when the calendar was changed (Gregorian to Julian?) was the day of the week changed or just the date? Once again this points to the arbitrariness of the days.  Chris Mussack
Andy Byler writes on the Biblical basis for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:   +  I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and  + between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall  + crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel.  + -Genesis 3.15   +  He who commits sin is of the devil ...    -1 John 3.8   +  Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with  + thee ...    -Luke 1.28  In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine.   + HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel.  The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar.  Andrew stated that KECHARITOMENE means not just "full of grace" but "having a plenitude or perfection of grace." The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament only in Ephesians 1:6   + Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath  + GRACED us in his beloved Son. (Rheims-Douay translation)  I cannot find any indication in my dictionary that the verb implies anything as strong as Andrew suggests, nor does the Ephesians passage suggest that the verb means "to preserve from any taint of original or actual sin from the first moment of existence." I should like to see a comment on the meaning of the verb, preferably not from s writer who is discussing Luke 1:28 at the moment.
Regarding the moral question Jen (jenk@microsoft.com) asked: "Is it okay to create a child if you aren't able to be a good parent?", I am reminded of a "speech" by one of the characters (I can't remember which) in the movie "Parenthood". [I am WAY to liberal with my quotation marks tonight...]  In this so-called (by me) speech, the character is expressing what  a lousy father he had and he made an interesting point.  He said something to the effect of: "You have to have a license to drive a car.  You have to have a license to own a dog.  You even have to have a license to fish. But, they'll anyone have a kid." [Keep in mind that I am, in NO way, trying to pass this off as a quote.  It is probably GROSSLY distorted but I think you get the point...]
Hello, I'm back..  I would first like to thank each and every person who sent me a response (be it a positive or negative one). I read EVERY letter and thought about  each one!!   I got all sorts of responses, from "marry her" to "have nothing ever to  do with her again"  Through reading the Bible and through a lot of prayer, here is what I have decided to do.  I sent her a letter today. First, i told her that if she was really serious about moving away from home to another state that "I would do anything to  get you here in NC." I told her that I tried to find out if there were  any new stores planning to be built---but they wouldn't tell me.  About her marraige comment (I'm not gonna call it a proposal, cause I still don't know if it was a total joke or not) I more or less said that "Marry me?? Well, get transferred to NC first and then we'll talk :) :)"  Hopefully, what i said could be interpreted either way.  Needless to say, there has been a lot of praying over this...I  have done a lot of reading about marraige from the Bible. If she was dead serious about getting married---I wouldn't do it yet simply b/c she is not (as far as I know to this point) a Christian. It just wouldn't work w/o God in the marraige as well. I figure that if God wanrs this to go through--he's kept us in touch for 10  years now---he can handle one more. If God wants it to happen, it will happen!  She will be in NC in June meetinf some relatives so I'll get to  see her...and I'll get a letter from her befoe then so I know more of what to look forward to.  I guess all I can do now is wait and pray. I have decided not to tell my folks until I'm totally sure what is going on.  I do ask that everyone that wrote me to please keep this situation in your prayers..  Finally, I would like to thank EVERYONE who wrote in...  If you have anything else for me...I will be at this email address for one week. Please tell me anyhting you want...I'm curious how folks think about what i did.   Thanx
[Someone quoted the following.  I've removed the name because it's not clear which name goes with which level of quote.  --clh]  >     ... And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman >     remains undefiled. >                 -- St. Epiphanus of Salamis, "Panacea against all heresies", >                    between A.D. 374-377.  >     ... For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen >     to be born of a virgin if He had judged that she would be so incontinent >     as to taint the birthplace of the Body of the Lord, home of the Eternal >     King, with the seed of human intercourse.  ... >                 -- Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Anysius, Bishop of  >                    Thessalonica, A.D. 392  On the basis of these examples I would say that Joe Moore was only wrong in claiming Augustine as a prime mover of the sin=sex view.  These quotes clearly equate sexuality with defilement and incontinance, even within the marriage relationship (else they would not apply to Mary after her marriage to Joseph).  So Joe's assignment of the reasoning behind the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary does seem to be supported by these quotes.
In article <Apr.14.03.07.21.1993.5402@athos.rutgers.edu> randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) writes: >I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged >couple become "married" in God's eyes?   Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony, nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.  Let's distinguish _real_ logistical problems (like being stranded on a desert island) from _excuses_ (such as waiting for so-and-so's brother to come back from being in the army so he can be in the ceremony)...
I don't understand who this post is directed towards; who are you trying to convince? By its subject i would assume you are directing the argument towards people who do not believe that Christ rose from the dead, but in your "proof," you use the bible exclusively.  The post is therefore immediately useless to anyone who doesn't believe that the bible is an unadulterated truth, and to everyone else, it is just a reaffirmation of a belief already held. As far as i know, there is no disagreement between christians over the resurrection of christ.  so my question is: what is the purpose of this post?  tomas
In article <May.11.02.38.56.1993.28319@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes: >As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the >Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a >doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)] > >Why is it fair to punish you, me and the rest of humanity because of >what Adam and Eve did? Suppose your parents committed some crime before >you were born and one day the cops come to your door and throw you in >jail for it. Would you really think that is fair? I know I wouldn't.     You may not think that it is fair, but how many sins do you know of that affect only the sinner?  Is it fair for us even to be able to get into Heaven?  Do we have a _right_ to Heaven, even if we were to lead sinless lives?  Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do things that way."  	Isaiah 55:8-9:  	"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my 	ways, saith the LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the 	earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts 	than your thoughts."     Original Sin is biblical:  	Romans 5:12-14:  	"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death 	by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have 	sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not 	imputed when there is no law.  Nevertheless death reigned from 	Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the 	similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him 	that was to come."  	1 Corinthians 15:22:  	"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 	alive."
Mike Rolfe writes:   > If you know the Latin, one really beautiful way to hear the  > Passion is its 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 done in English (same music as the traditional Latin) in many Anglican parishes. I should expect that many RCC parishes would do likewise.  The ST MATTHEW PASSION and ST JOHN PASSION of J S Bach are direct offshoots of this tradition
18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:  > ... I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and > quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying > to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful > to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other > relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would > like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological > works intended for a lay person?  I won't even recommend books from my congregation.  What you ask sounds attractive but it is dangerous.  As a new Christian you don't want to be contaminated with other people's interpretation.  Steep your self in scripture, and discuss with other christians.  Read if your must but remember that what other people write is their interpretation.  God has promised to give you light, so ask for it.  > I have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated > with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria > should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference > between the various Protestant denominations.   Don't wait too long before attaching yourself to church.  Just remember to always compare what they teach you with scripture like the Bereans did.
In article <May.9.05.40.15.1993.27475@athos.rutgers.edu>, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno ) writes: > [4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore, > babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off > from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine > and St. Thomas.    I haven't read this entire thread, but, if someone hasn't tossed this out yet, then here it is:   2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) :     "Then his servants said to him, `What is this thing that you have   done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when   the child died, you arose and ate food.' He [David] said, 'While the   child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows   whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But   now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall   go to him, but he will not return to me.'"  Anyhow, many interpret this to mean that the child has gone to Heaven (where David will someday go). I don't claim to know for sure if this applies to all babies or not. But even if it's just this one, what would you say to this?
Does anyone know about the Christian Embassy in Washington DC? What exactly does it do?  Please respond to lisa@ux1.lbl.gov
In article 28328@athos.rutgers.edu, carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes: >Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should  >check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation, >MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray >with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.  If you were to start your own religion, this would be fine.  But there is no scriptural basis for your statement, in fact it really gets to the heart of the problem.  You think you know more than scripture. Your faith is driven by feel goodism and not by the Word of God.  Just because they are nice people doesn't make it right.  You can start all the churches you want and it won't change the fact that it is wrong. That is not to imply that gays don't deserve the same love and forgiveness that anyone else does.  But to call their behavior right just because they are nice people is baseless, and it offers Satan a perfect place to work because there is no check on what he is doing.
Hello all.  We are doing a bible study (at my college) on Revelations.  We have been doing pretty good as far as getting some sort of reasonable interpretation.  We are now on chapters 17 and 18 which talk about the woman on the beast and the fall of Babylon.  I believe the beast is the Antichrist (some may differ but it seems obvious) and the woman represents Babylon which stands for Rome or the Roman Catholic Church.  What are some views on this interpretation?  Is the falling Babylon in chapter 18 the same Babylon in as in chapter 17?  The Catholic church? Hate to step on toes. thanks  --------  Jimmy Buddenberg       INTERNET:  jbuddenberg@vax.cns.muskingum.edu Muskingum College
Just a quick reminder:    	The way you are interpreting those passages is your opinion.  You make 	it sound as if your opinion is somehow an undisputable fact.  	Many would interpret the passages you cite very differently.  	(Many have--several of the great theologians you mentioned do that  	very thing.  These were people who had much more expertise in the 	interpretation of scripture than you or me or probably anyone reading 	this newsgroup.  To say that all of them are wrong and you are right 	is, in my opinion, (notice those last three words) coming pretty darn 	close to the sin of pride.    	In the future I would suggest you not be so absolutist in your  	interpretations, especially when contradicting highly respected 	doctors of Christianity.
tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:  >I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So you believe in the existance of One creator I assume.   >definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion >about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the >effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus  >as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew, >buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not >believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be  >lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only >god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.  Ok, god has the disclaimer, reserves the right to judge individual cases.  If we believe him to be loving, then we also believe him to be able to serve justice to all.  Don't worry if a Jew, or athiest is going to heaven or hell, for that is god to judge (although truly if you were concerned you could only worry abput those who refuse to believe/satisfy gods decrees) as much as keeping yourself straight. If you see something going on that is wrong, discuss it and explore it before making summary judgement.  People have enough free will to choose for themselves, so don't force choices on them, just inform them of what they're choices are.  God will take care of the rest in his justice.  >Thanks, >-Tim
news@cbnewsk.att.com writes: >Arrogance is arrogance.  It is not the result of religion, it is the result >of people knowing or firmly believing in an idea and one's desire to show >others of one's rightness.  I assume that God decided to be judge for our >sake as much as his own, if we allow him who is kind and merciful be the  >judge, we'll probably be better off than if others judged us or we judged  >ourselves.               ^^^^^^ ^^^      ^^                     ^^ ^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^ 1 Cor 11:31-32 "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.  When we are judged by the ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Lord, we are being discipled so that we will not be condemned with the world."  1 Cor 5:3 "Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present."          ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^  1 Cor 2:15-16 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not     ^^^^^^^^^ subject to any man's      ^^^ judgement:  'For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?'  But we have the mind of Christ."  Jude :14-15 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men:  'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to   ^^^^ convict all the ungodly of  ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"  Arrogance is a sin.  Although a desire to show others of one's rightness may be a sign of arrogance in some cases,  it may be only a sign that they are following the Bible in others:  Jude :22-23 "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with  ^^^^^^ fear -- hating  ^^^^ even ^^^^ the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."   >If I find someone arrogant, I typically don't have anything to do with them.    I hope you don't find me arrogant, then.  This sounds like a bad practice -- ignoring what certain people say because you perceive them as arrogant.  James 1:19 "My dear brothers, take note of this:  Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,"