waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: : I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where : Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such : as sexual promiscuity. :  : To which I reply: ...whoa there! :  : How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin?   I can't. :  : And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact : _judging_ him?  Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us : not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged." :  : C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II, : when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance" : for the horrors (sins???) of World War II. : --   I see your point, but I cannot more strongly disagree.  To repent means to turn around.  We, as a nation, have behaved incredibly arrogantly toward God condoning, encouraging, and even forcing folks to participate in activity directly opposed to the written Word of God.  We have arrogantly set our nation far above the God who created it and allowed us the luxury of living in this land.  We have set a bad example for other nations.  We've slaughtered unborn children by the millions.  We have stricken the name of God from the classroom.  We've cheated God out of the honor due Him at every turn, and we owe God an apology every bit as public as our sins have been.  When Jesus said "Judge not that ye be not judged", he was not addressing those like John the Baptist who had repented and were calling others to repent.  He was addressing those who remained in sin while heaping down condemnation on others for their sins.  His message to us all was to remove the log from our own eye before removing the speck from our brother's.  But He also said to rebuke and to reprove.  Don't forget that this is a command too.  Our problem today is that we tend to judge and condemn as though we were rebuking and we tend to neglect bringing folks back to the Lord with the excuse that we don't want to judge anyone.  In truth, what we need to do is to judge less and call others to repent more and to be able to distinguish between the two in our own motives.  Call sin what it is and do so openly.  Let it's charge fall correctly where it should. But instead of running someone into hell over it, pull them out of their hellward path and onto the heavenward path.  -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 	"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder... 	 We want prevention, not merely punishment. 	 We must reach the root of the evil... 	 It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt 	 from the dreadful deed... 	 No mater what the motive, love of ease, 		or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, 		the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed... 	 but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her 		to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."
In a previous article, randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) says:  >I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged >couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have >publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and >are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective >qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.  I have discussed this with my girlfriend often.  I consider myself married, though legally I am not.  Neither of us have been with other people sexually, although we have been with each other.  We did not have sexual relations until we decided to marry eventually.  For financial and distance reasons, we will not be legally married for another year and a half.  Until then, I consider myself married for life in God's eyes.  I have faith that we have a strong relationship, and have had for over 4 years, and will be full of joy when we marry in a church.  First, however, we must find a church( we will be living in a new area when we marry, and will need to find a new church community).  Anyway, I feel that if two people commit to marriage before God, they are married and are bound by that commitment.
Subject: Re: Seeking Christian opinion, all sorts. From: Rob Steele, rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu Date: 5 May 93 06:52:54 GMT  >Do you mean that your fellow Christians tend to find you wacky?  Maybe   >they're right.  You might be interested in Franky Schaeffer's books   >about what philistines American Christians are: _Addicted to   >Mediocrity_ and more recently _Sham Pearls for Real Swine_.  One day a few years ago Franky Schaeffer walked into a Greek Orthodox Church.  He is now an Orthodox Christian.  So is his mother and if his father, Fransis Schaeffer, had not passed away he too would have come into the church.   Franky, like many Americans who have recently found the Orthodox church, described the experience as finally coming home after a long jouney through a desert.  You should also read the book "Becoming Orthodox" by Peter Gillquist.  It describes the long journey of some 2000 weary Evangelical Protestants to the Orthodox church.   Come taste and see how good the Lord is.
A "new Christian" wrote that he was new to the faith and  learning about it "by reading the Bible, of course". I am not at all sure this is the best path to follow. 	While the Bible is, for Christians, the word of God, the  revelation of God is Jesus Christ and the chief legacy of this revalation is the Church. I am not recommending any one denommination, but I do recommend finding a comfortable christian congregation in which to develop your faith, rather than just reading the Bible. 	This does not mean that the Bible should not be read, although I would stick to the Gospels, epistles, and Psalms and avoid the Book of Revelation altogether [until you are with friends you are comfortable with]. I am sure that mistakenly fervent  projects to read the entire Bible have frequently bogged down with a remarkable lack of fervour somewhere in the middle of Leviticus, or for the really sturdy, somewhere in Chronicles. 	The point is that the Bible is their to illustrate the Faith of Christians, but does not provide the totality of that faith. Vital beliefs of virtually all Christians are simply not mentioned - the Trinity, the duality of natures in Christ, types of Church organization. All these beliefs and practices have developed from the lived experience of the Christian people, an experience lived one hopes in the Spirit. As such the Bible, I think, is better studies in the context of a congregation, and the context of other reading. 	Following up on a suggestion of an old confessor of mine, I  would even suggest that a good novel is a good way to reflect on the christian life. [Most novels of any profundity are actually discussing the nature of good and evil in the human heart]. My own induction into the christian faith was brought about [after grace] through reading Graham Greene: _The Power and the Glory_ and the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins. I would also recommend Graham Greene's _Monsignor Quixote_ and any novel by Iris Murdoch. The last is not even a Christian, but such is her insistence on the need for the good life, that, frankly, I often am more uplifted and God directed after reading her than after reading many parts of the Bible. And that after all is what being a Christian is all about: letting your soul and your life be, in some way, directed towards the infinite, represented to us by the person of Jesus Christ.
KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet writes:  [deleted] > first paragraph and the mention of pantheism.  Is pantheism "perverted" > and "dangerous", or just not one's cup of tea?  None of this is clear.  I can't speak for Mr. Cavano, but I understood his comment to refer to  the idea that unrecognized pantheism is dangerous to Christians.  If we  unthinkingly adopt pantheistic ideas that are opposed to Christianity,  we can pervert our faith.  When we clearly recognize pantheism when we  encounter it we have the opportunity to embrace what is consistent with  Christianity and reject what isn't.      We need to be alert, always thinking and questioning.  We must examine  the underlying assumptions of every book we read, tv program we watch  and socio-political movement we participate in.  Ideas are important.   Philosophies and doctrines are what give form to the events of our  lives.  They are the basis from which we live our lives of love and  service.  The command to love God with all one's mind means no fuzzy- headed drifting from idea to idea.   > and that consumerism and our rapacious style of living > are so rarely called by their appropriate name: Greed.  One Christian who acknowledges this is the Pope.  It is a frequent theme  in his writings.  Indeed, thoughtful Christians from most traditions  recognize that consumerism has no place in the lives of Christians.  It  too is a perversion and dangerous to our faith.  Thank you, Jack, for  pointing out the parallel.
In article <May.11.02.36.59.1993.28108@athos.rutgers.edu> dps@nasa.kodak.com wrote: > In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:  > |>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals, > |>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all > |>together with Troy Perry.    > Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug > addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too.  So what's > your point?  Is it OK. just because the people are nice?  I didn't say to visit some "nice" homosexuals.  I said "visit some congregations of Christians..spirit-filled believers.."   Praise the Lord that we are all members of the same body.  Let us agree to disagree.
A few points about Mary's being taken into heaven at the end of her life on earth:  One piece of evidence for Mary's assumption into heaven is the fact that no Christian church ever claimed to be the sight where she was buried. Some Christian churches claimed to be located at the final resting places of Peter, Mark, and other saints, but no one ever claimed to possess the body of Mary, the greatest of the saints. Why? Because everyone knew that she had been taken up into heaven.  Although there is no definitive scriptural proof for the assumption of Mary, some passages seem suggestive, like the passage in Revelation that describes a woman giving birth to a Son and later being crowned in the heavens. Of course, the woman in this passage has other interpretations; she can also be taken a symbol for the Church.  The assumption of Mary makes sense because of her relationship to Christ.  Jesus, perfect God and perfect man, fulfilled the requirements of the law perfectly.  Under the law God gave to us, we are to honor our mother and father, and Christ's act of taking his mother into heaven is part of his fulfillment of that law. Also, he took his flesh from her, so it seems appropriate that he decide not to allow her flesh to rot in the grave.  One last point: an ex-Catholic attempted to explain Catholic doctrine on the assumption by asserting it is connected to a belief that Mary did not die. This is not a correct summary of what Catholics believe. The dogma of the assumption was carefully phrased to avoid saying whether Mary did or did not die. In fact, the consensus among Catholic theologians seems to be that Mary in fact did die. This would make sense: Christ died, and his Mother, who waited at the foot of the cross, would want to share in his death.
(Dean and I write lots and lots about absolute truth and arrogance.)  vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes: > I strongly suspect that we are reaching an impasse here, which is why I > deign from commenting much further.  I agree that we'll probably never agree, and I'm starting to feel  frustrated, and I'm tired of having my conversations with my husband  dominated by this topic (just kidding, :-)).  I do have to say, though, that participating in this discussion has been a good learning experience for me.  My views on this topic have evolved and clarified through this, and I suspect that we may not disagree as  much as we think.   I admit that I'm strongly prejudiced against evangelical Christianity, and I may not always be rational in my reactions to it.  I grew up in EC, and went to an EC college.  It was definitely the wrong place for me, and I react strongly to any implication that EC or conservative Christianity has any sort of stronghold on true Christianity.  I shudder  when I remember the condescending attitude I had about other Christians  who didn't adhere to the EC model.  I have come to see that my real objection to this whole notion of  absolute truth is the actions I have seen it lead to.  I have had some  very bad experiences with evangelical Christians claiming to know the  truth, and judging me or others based on their belief that they have  the answers.  Knowing the truth doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of  room for others' opinions.  I can accept your belief in absolute truth as long as you* don't try to  use that belief to try to force others to comply with it, and you are  very careful that you don't hurt others with it.  Love your neighbor  seems to go totally out the window when one knows the truth and believes  that everyone should be living by that truth.  Other people have  convictions about the truth every bit as strong and sincere as yours,  based on careful searching, prayer, and their relationship with God.   Don't dismiss them because God didn't lead them to the same conclusions  as yours.  *This is not directed personally at you, Dean.
Joe Kellett (jkellett@netcom.com) wrote: [bits deleted] > I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that > teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices", > actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while > back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested. [...]   > The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula > were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is > reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy > rate.  I'd be fascinated to see such evidence, please send me your article! On the negative side however, I suspect that any such simplistic link     abstinence-education => decreased pregnancy,     contraceptive-education => increased pregnancy is false.  The US, which I'd guess has one of the largest proportion of  "non-liberal" sex education in the western world also has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates.  (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)
In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu> clh writes: > >[Often we get into discussions about who is Christian.  Unfortunately >there are a number of possible definitions.  Starting from the  >broadest, commonly used definitions are:  >3) The next level is an attempt to give a broad doctrinal definition, >which includes all of the major strands of Christianity, but excludes >groups that are felt to be outside "historic Christianity."  This is >of course a slippery enterprise, since Catholics could argue that >Protestants are outside historic Christianity, etc.  But I think the >most commonly accepted definition would be based on something like the >Nicene Creed and the Formula of Chalcedon.  Are you sure you want to include Chalcedon here?  I presume that you  mean the description of Jesus as fully human and fully devine.  Almost  everyone would consider the majority of Copts and Armenians, and the  Jacobites, as Christians, yet for 15 centuries it has been maintained  that they disagree with the Formula of Chalcedon.  Those that wouldn't  consider them Christians are most likely to object that these communities  don't require a personal commitment to Jesus, which is only tangentially  related to the Formula of Chalcedon.   --  Thanks, John Kolassa, kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu
This subject seems to be incredibly inflammatory.  Those who subscribe to _Biblical Archaeology Review_ will remember a spectacular letter battle set off when someone complained about a Franklin Mint ad.  (_BAR_ is a great magazine, but the contrast between the rather scholarly articles and the incredibly sleazy ads is extreme.)  In this ad, they were hawking a doll with a head based on the famous bust of Nefertiti, giving the face a typical doll-pink complexion. The letter complained about this as a misrepresentation on the grounds that Nefertiti was "a beautiful black queen."  This set off an exchange of hotheaded letters than ran for several issues, to the point where they had an article from an Egyptologist titled "Was Cleopatra Black?"  (The answer to the title is "no"-- she was greek.)  I have to say that I hear a hysterical note in much of the complaining.  I personally have seen only one blond-haired Jesus (in the National Shrine in Wash. DC), and I found it very jarring.  Western representations vary enourmously, but in general the image of is of a youngish male with dark hair and beard, of a sort that can be found (modulo the nose) all up and down the Mediterranean.  (Also, if what I remember is correct, the "Black Madonna" doesn't represent a person with negroid features.  It is black because of an accident.  Joe Buehler....?)  In the presence of all those marble statues, one is prone to forget that greeks are rather likely to have black hair.  When one crosses the bosporus, the situation breaks down completely.  Are Turks white?  How about Persians, or various groups in the indian subcontinent?  Was Gandhi white?  How about the Arabs?  Or picture Nassar and Sadat standing side by side.  And then there are the Ethiopians....  Those of a white racist bent are not likely to say that *any* of these people are "white" (i.e., of the racist's "race").  If I may risk a potentially inflammatory remark, one undercurrent of this seems to be the identification of modern jews as members of the oppressor race.  Considering the extreme dicotomy between medieval religion on the one hand and medieval antisemitism on the other, I don't think that this "Jesus was white" thesis ever played the roles that some hold it did.  Representations of Jesus as black or korean or whatever are fine.  It seems awfully self-serving to insist that Jesus belongs to one's own racial group.
Ever since I was a kid and learned to tell when I was in a  dream I have used my dreams for fantasies or working out problems. In my dreams I have done everything from yell at my mom to machine-gunning zombies, not to mention myriad sexual fantasies. I have deliberately done things that I would never do in real life. I understand the need to control ones thoughts, but I always felt that dreams were format free, no morals, no ethics, no physical laws, (though sometimes I would  have to wake myself up to go to the bathroom.)  Is this an incorrect attitude? Rather than weakening my inhibitions, I could argue that I got certain things "out of my system" by  experiencing them in dreams. By analyzing a dream I can determine if I have a problem with a certain situation, i.e. in a dream something will be exagerated that I can then contemplate and see if it really bothers me or not.  I can't believe that other people don't do the same. It seems  silly to attach moral significance to dreams.  I think that this is entirely different from out of body experiences, which I have never had.  Contradictions welcome.
In article <May.9.05.41.32.1993.27562@athos.rutgers.edu> Brian Finnerty, bfinnert@chaph.usc.edu writes: > One last point: an ex-Catholic attempted to explain Catholic doctrine > on the assumption by asserting it is connected to a belief that Mary > did not die. This is not a correct summary of what Catholics believe. > The dogma of the assumption was carefully phrased to avoid saying > whether Mary did or did not die. In fact, the consensus among Catholic > theologians seems to be that Mary in fact did die. This would make > sense: Christ died, and his Mother, who waited at the foot of the > cross, would want to share in his death.  The above article is a good short summary of traditional Christian teaching concerning the death of Mary.   Also very good is "Re: Question about the Virgin Mary" by Micheal D. Walker.  He tells the story very well. I would like to add that in the Eastern Orthodox Church we celebrate "The Dormition (or falling asleep) of the Theotokos (the mother of God)".  The Icon for this day shows Mary lying on a bed surrounded by the Apostles who are weeping.  Christ, in his resurrected glory, is there holding what seems to be a small child.  This is, in fact, Mary's soul already with Christ in Heaven.  The Assumption of Mary is one more confirmation for us as Christians that Christ did indeed conquer death.  It forshadows the general resurrection on the last day.  The disciples were not surprised to find Mary's body missing from the grave.  She was the Mother of the Savior.  She was the first of all Christians.  She gave birth to the Word of God.  If it were not for her we would not be saved.  This is why we pray in the Orthodox Church, "Through the prayers of the Theotokos, Savior save us."
Just a quick comment.  As a baptist clergyperson, I find the idea of such a "baptism" (if the news report is in fact accurate, and they seldom are regarding religion) offensive.  The pastor here seems to have a most unbaptist view of baptism- one that seems to demand the ceremony even when comprehension and choice are absent.  We do baptize converts, but no one who has been deceived into hearing the word is likely to be a convert.  If in fact the grace of God might work in such a situation, there is no harm done in waiting a day or two.  Baptist believe in regenerate membership.  Did this church include these half-baked (at best) converts into their church fellowship? Or do they somehow feel there is some validity in dunking them and turning them loose?  This kind of "evangelism" is certainly not baptist, and probably not very christian, either.
In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu wrote: > This subject was beaten to death on bit.listserv.christia recently, > until Madge stepped in and closed the topic.  It has been discussed > since privately in e-mail amongst their participants, and I've  > received some of it.  A fairly large file (approx. 18 KB) of comments  > made on the March On Washington was among these.  If it hasn't been  > posted here already (I don't know;  I just scan through this  > newsgroup, as at 1200 bps, I couldn't possibly read it all), I would > be glad to send it along.  I believe that it would be of interest to > people here. >  >  > I hope that anyone who remembers seeing Rev. Troy Perry's > "performance" at the 1987 March On Washington will see for themselves > just how inconceivable it is to mix Christianity with homosexuality. >  > Sean Patrick Ryan****fsspr@aurora.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com  You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals, that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all together with Troy Perry.    The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is).  He's not asking us to change our sexual nature, but He is calling us to practice the morality that He established from the beginning.  Isn't Satan having a hayday pitting Christian against Christian over any issue he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ.  Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  If they are living a moral life, committed to someone of the same sex, and God is moving in their lives, who are we to tell them they have to change?  That's my two cent.