waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.9.05.41.12.1993.27549@athos.rutgers.edu>, Bocher writes: |>  |> It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to  |> explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water. |> Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor. |> Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.  This sounds to me like a sort of generic modalism (in the the three phases of water are but different modes of behavior of the same physical stuff). It certainly does not seem to me to describe the orthodox position.  [Of course, I suppose that the medieval view of water may have been different, but now we know that the phases of water are just different *behaviors* of the same physical stuff - different modes, not different identities - but perhaps the medieval people did not know that].  |> And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I |> also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three |> ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and |> an employee in a business.  This is clearly Modalistic Monarchianism, since these three aspects depend solely on point of view, and are do not really represent actual variety within the person.  Do you now begin to see why
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?  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.  Hence, the unbaptized infants are cut off from the God against whom they, with the whole of the human race except Mary, have sinned.  Which is why Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and Spirit" which is the true meaning of born again (John 3.5).  Thus, as infants are in sin, it is very fair for them to be cut off from God and exlcuded from heaven.  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)
i'd just like to repeat and emphasize that because someone else is trying to make you feel horrible and worthless does not mean that you should feel that way, although that's easier to say than believe sometimes.  remember, God made you and loves you, so he must think you're something special.  (excuse the trite language here.)  also, the bully may just be someone who is mean for no reason -- not out of intentional mental torture.  has anyone else been harassed?  maybe they're just not talking about it.    i would have emailed but my reactions weren't fast enough and the post i'm responding to didn't include your address.  just take courage and remember that all of us on the net are rooting for you.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:  > >Now, as to the suggestion that all prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical, > >can you elaborate?  I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  How does the > >suggestion relate to Isaiah's prophecy of the birth of Christ by a virgin?  > >I don't see any cycles in that prophecy. >  > Maybe cyclical is not the best word.  ... >  > Another example would be the Scripture quoted of Judas, "and his bishoprick > let another take."  Another example is something that Isaiah said of His > disciples which is also applied to Christ in Hebrews, "the children thou > hast given me." >  > How does the preterist view account for this phenomenon.  Ah, double-fulfillment.  First of all I would say that I'm not sure all the prophecies had double-fulfillment, e.g., the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy.  I would say that just because this happens on some occasions does not mean it will occur always, especially with regard to NT prophecies. The apostles who quoted the OT and applied those passages to Jesus were acting as divine messengers and giving the inerrant Word of God to the Church.  No one has that authority today.  No one has the apostolic authority to say that such-and-such a prophecy has double-fulfillment.  If the imagry of Revelation fits with events of the 1st century, it is folly for us to try and make it apply to events 20 centuries later.
Dave Bernard (David.Bernard@central.sun.com) wrote:  : When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that : Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this : exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.  The phrase is "eulogemene su en gunaixin"- "blessed are you among women." There is nothing to indicate that this is an exceptional or unique status, only that _as a woman_ Mary was blessed.  Adding the word "all" is not a fair reading of the text.  There are some good reasons for the church's veneration of Mary, but they cannot depend on this verse.
In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu>, johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:  |> >Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must  |> >do something to ease the pain. |>  |> I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know |> who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?  I've seen this verse used to back up this idea:  "...He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..."  (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
In article <May.2.09.48.32.1993.11721@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes: |> Beyt (BCG@thor.cf.ac.uk) 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,  Oh, that must explain Matthew 18:  1) In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2) And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, 3) and said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. 14) Even so it is not the will of your father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.  Nice thing about the Bible, you don't have to invent a bunch of convoluted rationalizations to understand it, unlike your arguments for original sin. Face it, original sin was thought up long after the Bible had been written and has no basis from the scriptures.
In article <May.11.02.38.18.1993.28241@athos.rutgers.edu> adamsj@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com writes: >2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) :  [...] >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?     That brings up an interesting question.  If this interpretation is correct, how would these people be getting into Heaven before Jesus opened the gates of Heaven?
In article <Apr.17.01.11.19.1993.2268@geneva.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes: > >  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd >pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in >ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam >and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in >1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the >U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and >repression."  Having met Peter Kingston (of WBT) some years back, he struck me  as an exemplery and dedicated Christian whose main concern was with translation of the Word of God and the welfare of the people group he was serving. WBT literature is concerned mainly with providing Scripture in minority languages.  The sort of criticism leveled at an organisation such as this along the lines of "ideological manipulation and cultural interference" is probably no more than Christianising and education - in this WBT will stand alongside the early Christian missionaries to parts of Africa, or those groups who worked among native Americans a couple hundred years ago.  >  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even >praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that >Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as >automatically above reproach. > >                                                                  mp I think you need to substantiate these attacks as being a legitimate criticism of priorities other than spreading the gospel among underdeveloped people.
Desiree Bradley (Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca) asked us whether we should think of the Serbs as doing God's work in Bosnia.  I've refrained from posting, in hope that someone who is more familiar with the OT than I would answer.  But at this point I feel I have to say something.  Many things about this posting bother me.  I know of not the slightest suggestion in the NT that Christians should use force to propagate the Gospel, and the idea that we should not be concerned about the death of Moslems violates the heart of the Gospel.  Christ died to break down these distinctions.  In him there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female.  If Moslems do not know him, we may preach to them, but we don't kill them.  Furthermore, the attack is between states, not religions. There are Christians being attacked as well.  One of the towns under attack is one of the few places where Christians and Moslems are living together peacefully.  The precedents being suggested are from the OT.  There are in fact two different things being alluded to.  The first is from the entry into Canaan.  For that to be a parallel, we would need for God to have promised this land through a prophet.  And we would need the war to be a holy war.  There were tight constraints on behavior in those attacks.  Any violations were likely to cause the Israelites to be defeated.  Rape would not have been tolerated.  While the accounts in Joshua emphasize towns that were totally destroyed, note that it was possible for a town to make peace with the Israelites, and that once that was done -- even when deception was involved -- they were expected to honor it.  In contrast, there have been many violations of agreement in this incident. I see no evidence that God has granted Bosnia to the Serbs as a promised land, and if he had, their behavior would have disqualified this from being a holy war.  The other OT parallel is from later, when Israel was defeated by Assyria and Babylonia.  The prophets saw this as a judgement on Israel for her sins.  Someone asks whether we shouldn't see this as a judgement on the Bosnians for their sins.  This sounds like a replay of the old claim that we shouldn't have doctors or hospitals because illness is God's judgement.  Yes, even bad things may be used by God for good.  That includes actions of bad people.  But that doesn't justify them.  If you read the prophets, you find them very clear that in attacking Israel, the Assyrians and Babylonians were acting as *unintentional* agents of God.  Their intent was to attack God's people, and they would be judged for it.  The fact that they were actually carrying out God's plan didn't excuse their action. Furthermore, we shouldn't conclude from this that all attacks are judgements from God.  God explicitly interpreted that case, through his prophets.  As far as I know, he did not send any prophets to Bosnia.  While I find it hard to see any good in the current fighting, I am sure God will eventually make good come out of bad.  But that doesn't justify it, and it won't save the people who are doing it from judgement.
Just finished reading Burton Mack's new book, _The Lost Gospel, Q and Christian Origins_.  I thought it was totally cool.  Anyone else read it and want to  talk?
Here are some notes about what the church is to be like and some helpful ideas about how to choose a church:  Colossians 1:15-18    A.  Jesus is the head of the body, the church    B.  You cannot say "yes" to Jesus, but "no" to the church  Ephesians 2:19-22    A.  The church is the family of God    B.  The church is based on the Word of God only           Cornerstone=Christ           Foundation= Apostles=New Testament                       Prophets=Old Testament  (see Revelation 21:9-14)  1 Corinthians 12:12-13    A.  Baptism is when we become a member of the church  As for the question of denominations:    A.  The Bible teaches that there is only ONE church from Ephesians 4:4-6, Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13    B.  1 Corinthians 1:10-13 says that there should be no divisions in the church.  There should be no following of personalities in the church (and in time, their writings)    C.  There are so many churches today because of a problem.  2 Timothy 4:1-4 says that people will turn away from the truth and try to find a church that teaches a doctrine that suits their lifestyle  Hebrews 10:24-25    A.  Do not miss church    B.  Purpose is to encourage each other, so we will remain faithful. Involved on a relationship level in the church    C.  Must come to ALL services  Another verse which is helpful is Hebrews 3:12-15.  The church should be encouraging daily, as it is their duty to do.  Of course, more standards apply:    1 Timothy 4:16  People in the church should be watching their lives and doctrines to make sure they both live up to the Word entirely (ie, disciples).    Acts 17:10-12  The pastor does not come close to the Apostle Paul (natural conclusion since the Apostle Paul talked with Jesus directly face to face), so if the Bereans, who were considered noble, didn't take Paul at his word but checked out what he said with Scripture to verify his statements, then church members are to do the same and verify the pastor's statements.  If they are not verifiable or valid in light of other verses, then that group should be avoided as a church (would've made a wonderful suggestion to the Waco group, especially in light of Matthew 24).
My family has never been particularly religious - singing Christmas carols is about the limit for them. Thus I've never really believed in God and heaven, although I don't actually believe that they don't exist either - I'm sort of undecided, probably like a lot of people I guess.         Lately I've been thinking about it all a lot more, and I wondered how religious people can be so convinced that there is a God. I feel as though I want to believe, but I'm not used to believing things without proof - just as I can't believe that there definitely isn't a God, so I can't definitely believe that there is. I wondered if most of you were brought up by religious families and never believed any different. Can anyone help me to understand how your belief and faith in God can be so strong.          Another question that frequently crosses my mind is which religion is correct?? How do you choose a religion, and how do you know that the Christian God exists and the Gods of other religions don't?? How do you feel about people who follow other religions?? How about atheists?? And people like me - agnostics I suppose. Do you respect their religion, and accept their beliefs as just as valid as your own?? Isn't there contradiction between the religions?? How can your religion be more valid than any others?? Do you have less respect for someone if they're not religious, or if they follow a different religion than you would if they were Christian??          Also, how much of the scriptures are correct?? Are all events in the bible really supposed to have happened, or are they just supposed to be stories with morals showing a true Christian how to behave??          I generally follow most of the Christian ideas, which I suppose are fairly universal throughout all religions - not killing, stealing, etc, and 'Loving my neighbour' for want of a better expression. The only part I find hard is the actual belief in God.          Finally, what is God's attitude to people like me, who don't quite believe in Him, but are generally fairly 'good' people. Surely not believing doesn't make me a worse person?? If not, I find myself wondering why I so strongly want to really believe, and to find a religion.          Sorry if I waffled on a bit - I was just writing ideas as they came into my head. I'm sure I probably repeated myself a bit too.                          Thanks for the help,                                 Paul Simmons
Everywhere we see and hear about christianity (due to its evangalistic nature). Witnessing, spreading the gospel, etc. But what I want to know is...  "Why should I (or anyone else) become a Christian?"  (In twenty five words or less).  	Zeros and Ones will take us there.... 	peace. plastic. 1993.
In article <Apr.20.03.01.19.1993.3755@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes: > >2)  If you haven't accepted Jesus are your Savior, you're taking an awful >chance.  As I say to the Jehovah Witnesses (who no longer frequent my door), if >you are right and I am wrong, then I will have lived a good life and will die >and cease to exist, but if I am right and you are wrong, then you will die and >suffer eternal damnation.  I don't mean to make fun at this point, but its like >Dirty Harry said, "You've got to ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?'  Well do >you?"  "A man's got to know his limitations."  Don't be one of the "whosoever >wont's."    This is a ridiculous argument for being a Christian.  So then, you might  consider switching from Christianity to another religion if you were  offered an even more frightening description of another hell?  How many Christians do think there are who view it strictly as an insurance policy? Not many I know; they believe in a message of love and compassion for  others.  A faith based on fear of hell sounds like a dysfunctional  relationship with God.  Like a child who cringes in fear of a parent's physical violence.    Many religions have concrete views of heaven and hell, with various threats and persuasions regarding who will go where.  Competition over who can envison the worst hell can hardly nurture the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself.  >--Rex
In article <May.6.00.35.45.1993.15465@geneva.rutgers.edu>, marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) wrote: > >countries. That event is "approved" by the Pope. Currently, >images of Mary in Japan, Korea, Yugoslavia, Philippines, Africa >are showing tears (natural or blood). ... >If you have the resources, go to one of the countries I mentioned.  In article <May.9.05.40.20.1993.27478@athos.rutgers.edu>, mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) wrote: > >1.  As far as current investigations, the Church recently declared the >    crying statue and corresponding messages from Mary at Akita, >    Japan as approved (I found this out about a month ago.)  I'm in Japan. (Michael, could you give me more info about where Akita is: nearest city would be good)  If I find it, I'll get pictures and post a digitised version if enough people are interested.
In article gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King) writes:  >I posted this a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have appeared   >on the newsgroup, and I haven't had a reply from the moderator. We were   >having intermittent problems with our mail at the time. Please excuse me   >if you have seen this before... > >Should Christians fight? > >Last week Alastair posted some questions about fighting, and whether there   >are such things as "justifiable wars". I have started looking into these   >things and have jotted down my findings as I go. I haven't answered all   >his questions yet, and I know what I have here is on a slightly different   >tack, but possibly I'll be able to get into it more deeply later, and post   >some more info soon.  May I suggest the book: "Ethics" by Dr. Norm Geisler, of Dallas Theological Seminary.  In it, he goes over all the arguments pro and con and in-between, and comes up with a very reasonable answer.  If I have time, and there is enough interest, I may post his position.  Jon Noring  --   Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.
In article 28782@athos.rutgers.edu, revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes: >Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in >the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important pronouncements >of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the  >feminine into the Godhead.
In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:  [much stuff deleted] >Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting >atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  I have a  >difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something >about the subject.       excuse me, but what makes you think that just because he's atheist he doesn't know anything about christianity????  in my (albeit limited) experience atheists are often the ones who know _more_ about the bible, having searched it from end to end for answers.  i myself am a christian, but that doesn't mean i consider myself more of an authority on my religion -- i just have a different perspective on it (more biased in favor, naturally :) ).  it seems quite obvious why he is subscribed, if i may infer from what he says: he is looking for an explanation.  who are we to question his motives anyway -- at the very least (although i dislike this kind of logic), one could hope that he will "see the light".  critcism will, i fear, not give him a very positive picture of christians....  >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.   with regard to this, i guess i don't really feel sentiments of this order can be proven -- faith has a lot to do with it.  this is why those who search the bible from cover to cover for answers won't necessarily get what they're looking for.  of course that doesn't help anyone who doesn't already have faith -- what a big catch 22.  i discovered this quite recently when i ran into an agnostic looking for an explanation of my faith and i quickly discovered that i could give him nothing more than my life story and a description of my nature.  faith is a very personal thing -- any attempt to "prove" the "facts" behind it must be questioned.  >Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.  likewise -- no matter what you believe.  >--  >Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock  >Catechist >gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu
Edgar Pearlstein asks (Fri 7 May 1993) whether the Supreme Court, or any other government authority, has attempted a legal definition of religion.  The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1958 exempted from the draft those whose "religious training and belief" was opposed to participation in war in any form. It defined "R T & B" as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."  In the 1965 case of UNITED STATES V. SEEGER, the Supreme Court broadened the definition so as not to restrict it to explicit theists. Justice Tom Clark, delivering the Court's opinion, said:     We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme    Being" rather than the designation "God," .... the test of belief    "in a relation to a Superme Being" is whether a given belief that    is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its    possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God    of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such    beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective    holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme    Being" and the other is not...."  My immediate reference is THE FIRST FREEDOM, by Nat Hentoff, (Delacorte 1980, Dell 1981).