waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Woo! So far, we've had the following interpretations of the figure of the `Whore of Babylon' in Rev 17 & 18:  a) The United States of America b) MHO dB) which was as a figure of the fallen spiritual powers who    corrupt and oppress human society c) Historical Jerusalem d) Historical Rome  Dare I suggest that the passage might be many layered in meaning? How about * The prophecy reveals God's judgement on the corrupt & idolatrous state oppressing his chosen people (d) * That God's judgement extends _especially_ to his once chosen city (c) because, despite that City's special call, it still rejected God's grace at the decisive time (Rev 11:8? - also isn't Rev19:24 equally suggestive of Rome as Jerusalem?) * That the USofA is guilty of many of the crimes of Rome/Babylon (a) and is equally subject to God's judgement * That the Good Book(TM) actually encompasses _all_ these viewpoints by revealing the corrupting spiritual powers warring against mankind through the very society that we've created. (b)  Clever, huh? (<-- Flame here!) No need to argue at all!   I think Mary's view has a lot of sense because there seems to be a deliberate contrast between Rev 17/18 and Rev 21/22 - the mortal Jerusalem chosen by God but never (historically) fulfilling its vocation and the new Jerusalem perfected (outside of history) purely by God's grace. eg Details like Rev 17:1 `.. who sits on many waters' cf Rev 22 the single stream in the new Jersualem `the river of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.'
Regarding the consequences of the original sin:  Catholics believe that what Adam primarily lost by his sin, for himself and the human race, was sanctifying grace.  This is basically a share in the Divine life.  Take a rock and make it able to talk: what God does to a human being through sanctifying grace is similar. It makes such a one able to live on a plane that is above the powers of any possible creature.  This is the "everlasting life" that the New Testament speaks of.  What Christ did when he came was to restore this life of sanctifying grace to the human race.  He instituted the Sacraments as the means by which this life is given to people, and its increase fostered.  The absence of sanctifying grace at death means automatic exclusion from Heaven.  The nature of Heaven is such that it's impossible for a human being to have any part in it without the gift of sanctifying grace.  To use my example, it would be like taking that rock and attempting to hold a conversation with it: rocks cannot talk.  Neither can human beings live in Heaven without sanctifying grace.  This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they cannot enter into Heaven.  Turning it around, infant baptism is good supporting evidence for the Catholic belief in sanctifying grace.  Unless Baptism causes some change in an infant's soul, there is no particular reason to insist on the practice.  Yet infant Baptism was probably practiced by the Apostles themselves, and was *certainly* part of the Church shortly thereafter.
In article 28727@athos.rutgers.edu, 62johnson@cua.edu (Yusef Al-Tariq) writes: >Who's law is it that a wedding has to happen in a church?  the only reqirement >is that you and the bride agreee to marry each other.  How also can you say " >"christian wedding" when the proces of marriage is nt really discussed in the >bible.  why mus t a person get a civil marriage also?  The only standards i >look to are those imposed upon me by god... not of society.  If you want to live with someone, you can. If you don't want to have a civil marriage, don't. If you don't want to have a wedding in a church, don't. If you want to call that a marriage, go right ahead.  I hope that the young people that are around you, don't follow your example.   |-------------------| | Gary Chin         | | Staff Engineer    | | Sun Microsystems  | | Mt. View, CA      | | gchin@Eng.Sun.Com | |-------------------|
In article <Apr.19.05.13.16.1993.29204@athos.rutgers.edu> armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes: >In article <C4z5u3.Jxo@spss.com> luomat@alleg.edu writes: >> >>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways: >>	Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of   >>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still   >>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives   >>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by   >>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't   >>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is   >>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work? >> >So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than >what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the >more we come to love what and whom He loves. > >When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try >even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware  >of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love  >that empowers my weakness. >--  >Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S. >Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng  I apologize to the moderator, but the first quote was deleted and I would like to respond to both.  As for the "goal we can never achieve", the reward comes from the trying.  Paul makes a clear claim that we are to continue straining for the prize over in Philippians 3:10-16.  Only by not living out the commands do we stagnate and become lukewarm, to be spit out by Jesus. As it says in 1 John 5:3:  "This is love for God:  to obey his comands." That obedience is our straining to achieve for God.  Of course, this requires work on our part.  As for the quote in James, Satan doesn't care what we believe.  What matters is the results of our belief (works).  If one truly has faith in what one believes, one will either act on that faith or be lying to oneself about believing in the first place.    Stan, as for your first line, you have a very good point.  Obedience by obligation (grudgery) is not what God desires.  Instead, look at how many times the Bible talks about being joyous in all situations and when doing God's work.  Being begrudged by the work has no value.  Also, we should do the work necessary whenever we can, not just when we feel Jesus' presence.  Feelings can deceive us.  However, as Paul states to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2:  "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction."  Also, remember that Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:16:  "Watch your life and doctrine closely.  Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." So, in order to do the work necessary, we need to be sure that we are correct first.  Remember Jesus' warning in Matthew 7:3-5 not to be hypocritical about what we do.  The best way to accomplish this is to be a disciple completely in both thought and deed.
>If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible >ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know >right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
In article <Apr.21.03.26.39.1993.1370@geneva.rutgers.edu> lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:  >A God who must motivate through fear is not a God worthy of worship. >If the God Jesus spoke of did indeed exist he would not need hell to  The reason for the existence of hell is justice.  Fear is only an effect of the reality of hell.  --  boundary, the catechist
In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> Bill Mayne, mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu writes: In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> Bill Mayne, mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu writes: >In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu>  >Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes: >>I am interested in finding out why people become >>atheists after having believed in some god/God. >>In conversing with them on other groups, I've >>often sensed anger or hostility.   Though I don't >>mean to imply that all atheists are angry or hostile, >>it does seem to be one motivation for giving up >>faith.  Thus, some atheism might result from  >>broken-ness. > >This is condescending at best and a slightly disquised ad hominem >attack. This attitude on the part of many theists, especially the >vocal ones, is one reason for the hostility you sense. How do you >like it when atheists say that people turn to religion out of >immature emotionalism?  I wouldn't and don't.  I thought I did a pretty good job of qualifying my statement, but apparently some people misinterpreted my intentions.  I apologize for my part in communicating any confusion.  My intent was more to stir up discussion rather than judge.   It seems to have worked.  [rest of post noted - by the way, I did not originally post this to alt.atheism.  If it got there, I don't know how it did.]
Greetings and Salutations!  I would like to get in touch with people who (a) consider themselves Christians (you define it), and (b) are in the Martial Arts  Some topics for discussion: 	- your particular martial art 	- your view of the relationship between 		Christianity and your art 	- your view of the relationship between 		*your* Christianity and your art 	- why should a Christian participate in MA 	- why shouldn't a Christian participate in MA 	- Biblical views of MA; pro or con.  For example, I heard from one fellow: 	"...I tried the Karate for Christ thing and it wasn't for me..." 	- why or why not?  As an aside, I am involved (in *NO* official way) with an organization called the Christian Black Belt Association and I would also like to distribute info regarding upcoming events to *those who are interested*.  No, you won't be put on any "mailing list" nor will your name be "sold".  However, if you ARE intested in an email list, let me know.  I am interested in email replies ONLY as this is cross-posted  to groups I don't normally read.  If anyone wants a summary or, of course, on-going discussion, then let me know.   Shalom, Robert Switzer ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com
In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu>   gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:  > We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And  > we die.  I agree we need sleep & etc, but I disagree we are _just_ animals.    That statement is a categorical negative; it's like saying there are   _no_ polkadoted elephants.  It may be true but one would have to be   omniscient to know for sure.
In article <Apr.19.05.13.28.1993.29224@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes: >Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those  >who love him, who are called according to his purpose.  >Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will. >We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on >Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that >matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?  	Both Christians and non-Christians laugh at this quote because it exaggerates something we all feel, but know is not true.  Us Christians just KNOW that a little better!    :)    			In God we trust!   			-Christopher
In article <May.10.05.07.56.1993.3582@athos.rutgers.edu>,  muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes: > > Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending  > > God's laws they are not accountable for living them.  > > They are in the book of life and are not removed until  > > they can make a conscious decision to disobey God.  > >  > > A IDLER  >  > If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible  >> ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know  > right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."  >         What Christ did say was :  >  >         "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without  >          being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I  >          tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."  >  > Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?   In some earlier discussions on this thread I may have given the impression that even though children didn't  require baptism it wouldn't hurt if they were. To the contrary, when you baptize children before they are capable of comprehending it you deny them  their opportunity to demonstrate their desire to serve God.  Have any of you considered that children are not accountable for sin because they are not capable of  repentance? Peter said to a group of "men and brethren," "Repent and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2:38). Notice that he specified that if they *repent* then  they may be *baptized*.  In following Peter's instructions people must first demonstrate repentance (a forsaking of their sins and  a desire to obey God's commands) *before* they are  eligible to be baptized.  Since young children are not capable of repenting, they are not eligible for baptism. And since God is both just and merciful "sin is not  imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13), young  children are not accountable for what they can't  comprehend.
In article 27611@athos.rutgers.edu, mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes: >In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes: >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.  Let me say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is central to Christianity. If you personally believe that Jesus Christ died for you, you are a part of the Christian body of believers.  We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual, we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about Jesus Christ.  Are you working together with other Christians to spread the Gospel?
Chris Mussack writes:  > For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?  How about:  	The Holocaust 	The Spanish Inquisition 	Jonestown  (just to name a few) ?  Authorities sometimes tell people to do evil things.  People who "just follow orders" have tortured and killed others in very large numbers, and protest their innocence afterwards.  When your authority starts telling you to do things, you should ask questions.  Except for situations of pressing need ("I said shut the hatch because the submarine is filling with water!"), any reasonable authority should be able to give at least some justification that you can understand.  Just be sure to listen when authority answers.  (If anybody is interested in questions of psychological pressure and  following orders, you might want to read about a study done by Solomon Ashe  in 1951 on conformity, and another done by Stanley Milgram in 1963 on  obedience.  Both should be in any good book on psychology/sociology.  The  results are both fascinating and terrifying.)
Fred Gilham asks whether it is true that Goedel wrote a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God.  Yes, it is true. Someone has published a rebuttal pointing out certain flaws in the argument, and recently Professor C Anthony Anderson, of the Philosophy Department of the University of Minnesota, has written a revised version of the argument, perhaps free of flaws, and at any rate free of the flaws complained of in the original version. He has sent me a copy, which I still have (I saw it last week when I was looking for something else), and when it surfaces again I can supply particulars. My guess is that it is being published (or already has been) in the Journal of Symbolic Logic.
In article <May.14.02.11.48.1993.25266@athos.rutgers.edu>, dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,) writes: |> 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,     How about Acts 11: 15-18, 22-23 or, I John 4:1-8 which says to *try* the spirits to see if they be of God.    |> 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.    How do you know?  When have you tried to learn anything about me? --
marka@travis.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:  In soc.religion.christian you write:  >Regarding David Wilkerson's prophecies.  While I'm not real sure of >his credibility, I do remember a book he wrote, called A VISION or >something like that.  He made a prediction that people who bought gold >would be hurt financially.  At the time, gold was up to about $800; >now it is less than half that.  This prediction stuck in my mind >because a lot of people where I worked were buying gold.  Note that the above type of prediction does not require a God to be made. An expert in a field can also predict things based on experience. Beware of predictions like "The volcano will erupt tomorrow!"  Don't follow the preacher because of such statements that come true.  Note also, that if I'm describing a (hypothetical) death of a friend as a result of his passion for fast motorcycles, I might say "his mother predicted he would die."  Of course, his father may have said "he 'll make good money because of his hobby" and depending upon the final outcome of the situation I end up mentioning the one that's relevant.  A reader down the road will get the impression that the mother or father had predicted accurately the event, when it was just a casual statement.  Finally, on prophesies, note that there are many prophesies that can be fulfilled my people, often to fool believers.  If I say, "Beware, the terminal will unexpectedly be shut off!" and then after 2 secs I turn it off (or have someone come out from another room and do it) there was no prediction.  A similar situation arises with the establishment of the Jewish state.  While pressing for it, prominent Jews argued that it was predicted that they'd have a state again, and that the time has come.  (I've read this somewhere, but can't think of the source - if you can, please let me know.)  In this case, the establishment of the state does not really fulfill the  prophesy since the prophesy was used in order to push for the establishment of the state.  Deciding what was truely a fulfillment of prophesy is very tricky.  -leo
In article <Apr.20.03.02.42.1993.3815@geneva.rutgers.edu>, conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote:   > I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere > man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.  It is just as Christ said about his return:  "Some will say, 'He is in the desert.' or some will say, 'He is in the wilderness.'  But do not believe them.  For as lightning flashes east to west so shall the coming of the Son of Man be."                                            { My paraphrase - I think the verse is                                            somewhere in John }  Jon  ---------------- sig file broken....  please try later...
In article <May.12.04.29.14.1993.9997@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:  >	My feeling on baptism is this:  parents baptize their baby so that the >	baby has the sanctifying grace of baptism (and thus removal of original >	sin) on its soul in the event of an unexpected death.  You are right, Michael.  In John 3:5, Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."  That's really what He said, and He meant it.  That verse is the definition of baptism.  I don't have the law book in front of me, but there is a canon law that urges parents to baptize their children within one week of birth for the very reason that you state.
In article <May.11.02.38.56.1993.28319@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:  >>Eugene Bigelow writes:  >>>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true, >>how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?  >Andrew Byler writes:  >>[What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they >>deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf >>Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as >>purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it >>is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven....  >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.  Well, suppose your mother was a crack addict and crack user/abuser while she was pregnant? Suppose your husband gave you some SDT (this recently happened to a close friend of my wife and mine)?  OFTEN, the consequences of our sin are at least partially inflicted on innocent people. Several times in the OT, this is pointed out, even saying that descendants would suffer consequences for a person's sin for several generations. Even today, we see multi-generational (to coin a phrase) effects from alcoholism, child abuse, and spousal abuse just to name three.  So, God's definition of fair and ours differ.  Some points of perspective:  Though the predisposition towards sinning is now inbred (see Webster's first definition of inbred) thanks to Adam, it is arrogant and foolish for any of us to think we would have done any different if we were in their shoes. I know myself pretty well, and I'm just not that good. Take God's word for it, neither are you. "There is no one righteous..."  More important, when a person decides to be a disciple of Jesus, God promises supernatural help in overcoming our physical self's sinful tendency. We can, of course, choose to ignore this help. (Rom 7,8)  "...God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes." -Eccl  Mark
Joe Moore writes:   > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at  > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.  > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the  > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed  > the case for the doctrine.  Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858, four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the Pope.
.   Of some relevance to the posts on this subject might be Deut.23:2,
In article <May.11.02.39.05.1993.28328@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov   (Ann Carlson) writes: > In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu>, > 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. > --   I would absolutly love to have the time and energy to do so. The problem is to be totally fair I would have to go throught this type of search on every issue I belive in.  I don't have the time, resources, or ability to do what you ask.  Maybe you should pray that God gives me the opportunity instead of simply discrediting me because I have not been able to talk to every gay christian.