waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:  > 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?    Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also      assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"      to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't      we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to      "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"  > 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.  It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also      create man.  Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,      nor do I assert it is probable.  But the possibility is there,      given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic      code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.      Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to      man's existence?  > 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.  As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory.  Now,      if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then      we have yet to find evidence of such.  But as it is now, man      is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're      warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in      genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).      For more on this check out talk.origins.  > 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.  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...  Stephen      _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist    _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian   _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality        _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility _/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...
>Well, I was certainly turned off by that first paragraph of oft-used >platitudes. I can't count the times I've heard those common tactics >anymore...'you may not believe it but that doesn't change the fact >that it's true'...the old analogy about trusting your parents...sheesh. >Need I point out how parents can show children that they are right? >That difference in capability alone crushes that analogy, as any 'facts' >about Christianity I have seen turned out to be beliefs. What I seek is >fact--knowledge--if I can get it, and evidence for a belief if I can't. >So far from Christians I have received neither...
In article <May.11.02.37.42.1993.28189@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir, muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes: >Instead, I'm still faced with the >implication that atheism is some kind of aberration and that only "broken" >people are atheist.  Again, as the original poster of the article, I apologize if it implied that atheism = brokenness.  Such was not my intent and I apologize for any hurt feelings in the process.
While this is essentially a discussion of reincarnation in the context of Christianity Gerry Palo has made some comparisons to Asian religious beliefs on this topic which have simplified the Asian idea of karma to the point of misrepresentation.  There are significant differences in the idea of karma among Hindus, Jains, Buddhists (and even among the various Buddhist traditions.)  To refer to karma as a system of reward for past deeds is totally incorrect in the Buddhist and Jain traditions.  Karma is considered to be a moral process in which intentions (either good or evil) shape a person's predilections for future intention and action and produce a person who is more prone to good than evil, or the opposite -- "reward" has nothing to do with it.  Both Jainism and Buddhism are atheistic so there is no deity to dispense rewards or punishments.  Karma is usually described in terms of seeds and reaping the fruit thereof.  In fact "As you sow, so shall you reap" is found in the Pali Canon as I recall, the metaphor of natural growth is explicit.  Hinduism, or some sects in that tradition, are I believe much more deterministic and involve concepts closer to reward and punishment being theistically inclined.  In point of fact, the Theravadin Buddhist tradition of Southeast Asia considers karma as only one of five influences in human life, and in fact from their point of view they would be unable to explain the mechanics of karma without the element of free will.  Also in Eastern religions there is a difference between reincarnation and rebirth, which is essentially absent in Western considerations.  Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation among Christian thinkers?  What were his views, and how did he relate them to the Christian scriptures?
In article <May.9.05.42.07.1993.27611@athos.rutgers.edu> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:  >>	Romans 1:27 >>	I Corinthians 6:9 >>	I Timothy 1:10 >>	Jude 1:7 >>	II Peter 2:6-9 >>	Gen. 19 >>	Lev  18:22 >>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality) > >Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of >them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations. >Others simply do not address the issues. > >You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course >in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know.  I suggest that >you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about. >--  >Michael  Well, Michael,  I don't know if clh has left them in the faq  (Maybe you should post the "how to get there map again), but I posted two or three lengthy exegetical paper on these verses.  They looked at the OT, NT and intertestimental usages of terms in reference.  I would suggest you read those before you talk about a "need" in exegetical studies.  If those aren't enough, I could also provide "The source and NT Meaning of Apsevokoitai".  Dr James DeYoung published it in THE MASTERS SEMINARY JOURNAL in fall of '92.  To read any of these 4 papers shows that the shoe is on the other foot as far as a need for honest exegesis.  Again, please refer to the faq file, or if you are unable to acess it, drop me a line and I will enclose them to you.  Rexlex@fnal.fnal.gov
Before you finalize your file in the FAQs (or after), you might want to  correct the typo in the following:  > Kinsey (see below) is the source  > of the figure 10 percent.  He defines sexuality by behavior, not by  > orientation, and ranked all persons on a scale from Zero (completely  > heterosexual) to 6 (completely heterosexual).  It seems one or the other end of the rating scale should be identified with  "homosexual".  As a personal note, I guess I differ with you on the question of work  entering human life as a result of sin.   > Note that in the  > creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.   Before the fall (Gen 2:15) "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into  the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." which I would call "work".   For me, the difference introduced by sin is the painful aspects of work added  at the fall (I take the cursing of the ground in vs.17-19 to apply to the  work for sustenance).  In a way, some view "work" as a blessing (Ecclesiastes  is a fun book! - for melancholies).  I hope I do not sound caustic, maybe you can enlighten me further.  Well, this is certainly a delicate subject, and I guess you accomplished what  you state as your purpose "It summarizes arguments for allowing Christian  homosexuality", not for me the most noble goal, but you are writing a FAQ.  I wonder if you might temporize the apparent "sentence" of the specific  homosexual you propose (arguably tenuously define). > The danger in advising Christians to > depend upon such a change is clear: When "conversion" doesn't happen, > which is almost always, the people are often left in despair, feeling > excluded from a Church that has nothing more to say but a requirement > of life-long celibacy.    Perhaps that would be true of "celibacy from homosexual relations", or  refrainng from their choice relationships, but that does not forbid  heterosexual.  Could they not have/enjoy heterosexual relations "for what it  was worth"?
In article <May.10.05.07.52.1993.3559@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: > >I have a strong preference for editions that do _not_ indent the beginning >of each verse as if verses were paragraphs.  The verse numbering is a >relatively modern addition and should not be given undue prominence. >  Does anyone know of an English language edition that does not show the verse (or even chapter) numbers.  I have always thought that such an edition would be very useful - although hard to navigate around.  I have a Scots NT that doesn't show verse numbers, and it is great to read, particularly longer narrative passages, but my Scots isn't quite up to doing proper study from this edition - I tend to use it to get a "feel" for a story, particularly in the gospels, and then use an English edition to look for details.  Alison
In article <May.10.05.08.50.1993.3730@athos.rutgers.edu> bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes: >We chose to believe whetever we want, but we are not allowed to define >our own Christianity. we see in parts. If you see something that I do >not see, or vice versa, it does not give me the right to play jokes on >your belief! > It is important if Christianity is being damaged by it. If people who "speak in tongues" make claims that they are miraculously speaking a foreign language through the power of the Holy Spirit, when it can easily be shown that they are simply making noises, it damages all Christians, since many who are not Christians do not distinguish between the various sects.  The more modest claim for "tongues" that it is simply uncontrolled praise in which "words fail you" is surely the one that should be used by those who make use of this practice.  I agree with the point that "Charismatic" practices like this can lead to forms of worship which are more about the worshipper showing off than genuine praise for God; one of the things Jesus warned us about.
wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:  >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.  >David H. Wagner >a confessional Lutheran		"Now thank we all our God   	Whoah  whoah  whoah  WHOAH!!!   What?!?  	That last paragraph just about killed me.  The Deuterocanonicals have 	ALWAYS been accepted as inspired scripture by the Catholic Church, 	which has existed much longer than any Protestant Church out there. 	It was Martin Luther who began hacking up the bible and deciding to 	REMOVE certain books--not the fact that the Catholic Church decided 	to add some much later--that is the reason for the difference between 	"Catholic" and "Protestant" bibles.
I am writing a paper on religion and how it reflects  and or affects modern music.  This brief questionaire is summary of the questions I would like answered.  A response is requested and  can be mailed to me directly at:                                          gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu                                *PLEASE MAIL - DO NOT POST*  Thanks in advance, Matt Kressel   ----------------------------------------------------------------------  1.) How do you feel about groups like Diecide, Slayer, and Dio who freely admit to practicing satanism and preach it in their songs?   2.) How do you feel about groups like Petra, old Stryper, Whitecross, and Holy Soldier who promote and sing about Cristianity?   3.) How do you feel about groups like Front 242, XTC, Revolting Cocks, Minor Threat, and Ministry who condone and sing about atheism?   4.) How do you feel about bands like Shelter who preach the Hare Krishna religion and other minority(but not unheard of) religions?   5.a) Do you feel there is any difference between promoting music that supports Cristianity and music that condones satanism?    b) Why do you feel this way?   6.) What types of music do you listen to?   7.a) How often do you purchase music?    b) How often does that music contain lyrics with undertones in religion?   8.a) Do you feel that music one listens to affects the way one views a particular religion? Religion in general?    b) How does it affect the way you view your religion? All religions?   9.)  FEEL FREE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS HERE
In article <Apr.16.23.15.09.1993.1823@geneva.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes: >... >I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is >ever disproved. ...  Didn't Paul write that if the Resurrection is not true, we are the biggest fools of all?  However, whether you believe in Christ or not, His teachings (e.g. love your brotherman as yourself), even if only  followed at a secular level, could do a great deal to alleviate some of  the problems we see today in the world.  Even when I was a rabid atheist  I couldn't deny that.
In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu>   mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes: > I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see   no  > Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.   > But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel"  > Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only  > parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original  > Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated  > mission? >   I'd recommend reading _Mormonism and Early Christianity_ by Hugh Nibley,   particularly the articles on Christ's forty-day (post-resurrection) mission,   baptism for the dead, early Christian prayer circles, and temples (2 articles).   ..bruce..  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce F. Webster             | A religion that does not require the sacrifice CTO, Pages Software Inc      | of all things never has power sufficient to bwebster@pages.com           | produce the faith necessary unto life and #import <pages/disclaimer.h> | salvation.  -- Joseph Smith
davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes,  >  However, God's love is qualified.  The Bible says: >  >      The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD:  but he >      loveth him that followeth after righteousness.   Proverbs 15:9 >  >      For  the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of >      the ungodly shall perish.                            Psalm 1:6      I am extremely uncomfortable with this way of phrasing it.  God's love  is unconditional, unqualified, unfathomable.  We are capable of  rejecting God's love but He never fails to love us.  These verses do not show that God's love is qualified but rather that He  is opposed to evil.  I am uncomfortable with the tract in general because there seems to be  an innappropriate emphasis on Hell.  God deserves our love and worship  because of who He is.  I do not like the idea of frightening people into  accepting Christ.    I see evangelism as combining a way of living that shows God's love with  putting into words and explaining that love.  Preaching the Gospel  without living the Gospel is no better than being a noisy gong or a  clanging cymbal.  Here's a question:  How many of you are Christians because you are  afraid of going to Hell?  How many are responding to God's love?
After reading this story about St. Maria Goretti (posted two weeks ago), I am a bit confused.  While it is clear that her daily life is one of probity and sanctity, I am afraid I don't quite understand the final episode of her life.  I am reading it  correctly, she (and the Church apparently) felt that being raped was a sin on _her_ part, one so perfidious that she would rather die than commit it.  If this is the case I'm afraid that I  disagree rather strongly.  Can anyone out there explain this one to me?  Yours in Christ,
In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu> autry@magellan.stlouis.sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes: >I have enrolled in "The History of Christianity" at a college here in >St. Louis. The teacher of the class is what I consider to be >closed-minded and bigotted on the subject of what the definition of >Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the >Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in >Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian. > What you call "the Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it" is precisely the result of the first Christians getting together and trying to find an acceptable answer to your question "what is a Christian?". I can't see what you are objecting to: someone is saying what historians of all beliefs would agree on, and you are calling him a closed-minded bigot?  You really ought to say what you mean by "belief in Jesus Christ". It is not a wording that is sufficient to describe a Christian. Muslims believe in Jesus Christ although they believe he was a prophet and not the incarnated Son of God. But followers of Eastern religions might be quite happy to say that Jesus was the incarnation of God - along with large numbers of other historical and mythical figures.  So perhaps you ought to rephrase your question and say precisely what it is in the traditional definitions of what it is to be a Christian, as handed down by the Universal Church, you object to but regard as unnecessary for being a Christian.
In article <Apr.14.03.08.08.1993.5448@athos.rutgers.edu> jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:  >One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate  >(at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No >reasonable alternative exists.  The big-bang model supposes a temporal singularity at the point of origin. There was _no_ time for a prior cause to occur in. If you want to invent fables for the surrounding context, fine, but one fable is only as good as any other. Why should I prefer to believe in a God that _just_ exists, as opposed to a singularity that _just happened_, or  giant puce subspace iguanas, that fling universes off their tongues like gobs of spit?  |As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't |true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).  >I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes, >but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining,  >reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I >can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any* >technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite >having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.  Just your opinion, and unfortunately wrong. Self assembling molecules have already been produced, entirely from inert matter, and have spontaneously mutated into a more rapidly assembling form on exposure to ultraviolet light. Both abiogenesis and the beginnings of evolution, TODAY. (saw this in "Nature", early last year.)  Biological vitalism is dead, and has been dead for many, many years. Give it up. Life is not a 'spark'. Life is the self-organization of systems poised between chaos and order.  >Until the King returns, > >Jason  Your King baldly and repeatedly stated he would be back within the lifetime of some then present and alive. "Soon, soon" he said, over and over - as have many would be messiahs.  It is Nineteen Ninety Three 	of Years Anno Domini Tell me, Tell me, where is He? 	Nowhere at all, Q. E. D.  	Max G. Webb
In article <Apr.17.01.10.44.1993.2232@geneva.rutgers.edu> news@cbnewsk.att.com writes: >>Paul Conditt writes: [insert deletion of Paul's and Aaron's discourse on anger, ref Galatians 5:19-20] > >I don't know why it is so obvious.  We are not speaking of acts of the  >flesh.  We are just speaking of emotions.  Emotions are not of themselves >moral or immoral, good or bad.  Emotions just are.  The first step is >not to label his emotion as good or bad or to numb ourselves so that >we hide our true feelings, it is to accept ourselves as we are, as God >accepts us.    Oh, but they definitely can be.  Please look at Colossians 3:5-10 and Ephesians 4:25-27.  Emotions can be controlled and God puts very strong emphasis on self-control, otherwise, why would he have Paul write to Timothy so much about making sure to teach self-control?   [insert deletion of remainder of paragraph]  > >Re-think it, Aaron.  Don't be quick to judge.  He has forgiven those with >AIDS, he has dealt with and taken responsibility for his feelings and made >appropriate choices for action on such feelings.  He has not given in to >his anger.  Please, re-think and re-read for yourself, Joe.  Again, the issue is self-control especially over feelings and actions, for our actions stem from our feelings in many instances.  As for God giving in to his anger, that comes very soon.  > >Joe Moore