waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.14.03.07.58.1993.5438@athos.rutgers.edu>, mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) wrote:  >  > The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of > soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as > Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis. The above also expresses a rather odd sense > of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were > mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people > today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the > cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in > the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically > accepting what they were told. >  > Bill Mayne >  > [This may be unfair to Lewis.  The most prominent fallacy attributed > to him is the "liar, lunatic, and lord".  As quoted by many > Christians, this is a logical fallacy.  In its original context, it > was not.  --clh]   Exactly.   C. S. Lewis has taken a couple of pretty severe hits in this group lately. First somebody was accusing him of being self-righteous and unconvincing. Now we are told that we Christians should be embarrassed by him. (As well as by Josh McDowell, about whom I have no comment, having never read his work.)  Anyone who thinks that C. S. Lewis was self-righteous ought to read his introduction to The Problem of Pain, which is his theodicy. In it, he explains that he wanted to publish the book anonymously. Why? Although he believed in the argument he was presenting, he did not want to seem to presume to tell others how brave they should be in the face of their own suffering. He did not want people to think that he was presenting himself as some kind of model of fortitude, or that he was anything other than what he considered himself to be -- "a great coward."   OFM has adequately handled the question of whether we ought to be embarrassed by Lewis' liar/lunatic/lord argument (which, by the way, is part of a *much* bigger discourse.) I would just like to add that, far from being embarrassed by Lewis, I am in a state of continual amazement at the soundness and clarity of the arguments he presents.   - Phil -
In article <Apr.10.05.30.35.1993.14329@athos.rutgers.edu> HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes: >Aaron Bryce Cardenas writes: >After all, what does prophesy mean?  Secondly, what is an Apostle?  Answer: >an especial witness--one who is suppose to be a personal witness.  That means >to be a true apostle, one must have Christ appear to them.  Now lets see >when did the church quit claiming ......?  Actually, an apostle is someone who is sent.  If you will, mailmen could be called apostles in that sense.  However, with Jesus, they were designated and were given power.  Remember that there were many thousands of people who witnessed what Jesus did.  That didn't make them apostles, though.
In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes: >In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes: > >> Drugs are a replacement for Christ. >>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? > >>  This is why the most effective  >>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual  >>needs. > >You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim >like this. > In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse- recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.  Unfortunately, as evidence for God, this can be dismissed by stating that the same defect of personality makes substance abusers as makes  people 'religious', and the debunker could perhaps acknowledge that being religious is a better crutch than being a drug addict, but still maintain that both are escapism.  (And I suspect that there are some atheists who would find the substance abuse preferable to Christianity.)  I think that an essential problem with communication between Christ- ians and atheists is that as Christians we necessarily see ourselves as incomplete, and needing God (the 'God-shaped hole'), while atheists necessarily see themselves as self-sufficient.  If the atheists are right, Christians are guilty of being morally weak, and too cowardly to stand up for themselves; if the Christians are right, the atheists are guilty of considerable arrogance.  (I use the term atheist to refer to a person who has a definite conviction that there is no God, as opposed to one who does not know and/or does not care about God.) == Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living, (seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,                                               | God will find his people busy Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds. No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          | I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan
There is some controversy in my denomination as to what authority is vested  in the pastor.  I am still forming my opinion.  I am solicing opinions, and  references for what that is, how much, and how it should be used.     As a general reference, I would not exclude responses from different  denominations based on Biblical teachings, but you have to understand our  church is independent, protestant and likely to be much different from those  that follow ecclesiastical authority in the church.  We may need to discuss  the roles of deacons and elders.  Thanks for your replies.
David Hammerslag asked:  	How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage 	with Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will 	neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?  Several explanations for this seeming contradiction have been proposed, but most LDS scholars whose opinions I have studied take more or less one of the following three positions:  (1) Jesus was talking to a group of people (Sadducees) who were trying     to trip Him up with what they felt was a silly hypothetical situa-     tion that ridiculed the concept of a resurrection (something they     didn't believe in).  These people -- and those associated with them     ("Now there were with us seven brethren", Matt. 22:25) -- would not     be receptive to such higher blessings as eternal marriage.  Hence,     the people in the story would likely not be married in the eterni-     ties; but that doesn't mean other, more faithful people could not     have this blessing.  (2) Jesus was making a distinction between the state or condition of     =being= married, and the process of =becoming= married.  The latter     activity (marrying and giving in marriage) will not take place in     the eternities, because all eternal marriages will be taken care of     before then.  (3) The account as we have it (in all three of the synoptic Gospels) is     missing something that would make its real meaning clearer.  Note     that we (LDS) do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, so we do not in     general feel obliged to reconcile each and every Bible text with     modern revelation through Joseph Smith and other latter-day proph-     ets.  Nor are we particularly upset that the account in question     was not significantly revised in the "Joseph Smith Translation" or     "Inspired Version" of the Bible, since we do not believe this work     was completed or that failure to revise a passage in the JST con-     stitutes divine approval of that passage as it stands in the KJV.
In article 28120@athos.rutgers.edu, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:  >	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist >	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was > >Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with >"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would >be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and
In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) wrote: >I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin. >Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make  >a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole >life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't >God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us >sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?     Yes, Mary is fully human.  However, that does not imply that she was just as subject to sin as we are.  Catholic doctrine says that man's nature is good (Gen 1:31), but is damaged by Original Sin (Rom 5:12-16). In that case, being undamaged by Original Sin, Mary is more fully human than any of the rest of us.     You ask why God cannot "repeat the miracle" of Mary's preservation from Original Sin.  A better way to phrase it would be "why _did_ He not" do it that way, but you misunderstand how Mary's salvation was obtained.  Like ours, the Blessed Virgin Mary's salvation was obtained through the merits of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.  However, as God is not bound by time, which is His creation, God is free to apply His Sacrifice to anyone at any time, even if that person lived before Christ came to Earth, from our time-bound perspective.  Therefore, Christ's Death and Resurrection still served a necessary purpose, and were necessary even for Mary's salvation.
In article <May.11.02.37.49.1993.28198@athos.rutgers.edu>  mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:  >I would say only to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church >neither approves nor disapproves of capital punishment, as >confirmed in the recent catechism, though there are many RCs >who were rather surprised and upset that capital punishment was >not explicitly condemned.  I quote from the journal, "30 Days In the Church and In the World," 1992, No. 8/9, p. 29.   Regarding the new draft of the Universal Catechism:  	In procuring the common good of society the need could arise 	that the aggressor be placed in the position where he cannot 	cause harm.  By virtue of this, the right and obligation of  	public authorities to punish with proportionate penalties, 	including the death penalty, is acknowledged.  For similar 	reasons, legimate authorities have the right to impede 	aggressors in society with the use of arms.  The Church's  	traditional teaching has always been expressed and will  	continue to be expressed in the  	consideration of the real conditions of common good and the 	effective means for preserving public order and personal 	safety.  To the degree that means other than the death 	penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the 	peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred 	because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the 	final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.    As is clearly shown by this excerpt, the Church's teaching on capital punishment remains today as it has always been in the past - in total accord with my sentiment that I do not disagree with the use of deadly force in those cases for which this option is justifiable.    >I do not think your biblical quote can automatically be taken >as support for capital punishment. I take it that as a Roman >Catholic you are opposed to abortion, and would still onsider >it wrong, and something to be objected to even if legalised by >"authority".  I seek to conform my will to the will of God as expounded by His instrument of the visible Church here on earth whenever the question of faith or morals arises.
What we call today the "Old Testament" was being written up to approx- imately 168 BCE, according to most modern scholars.  Aside from the book of Daniel, the whole OT predates Alexander (the Great).  These books were written (predominantly) in Hebrew. 	There were also other books being written at about this time and later by Greek-speaking, or "Hellenistic", Jews.  These books are those which are reckoned by many denominations as "Apocrypha". 	Before the closing of the Writings, the third part of what is today called the canon, all of the books were in use by Jews of the day.  However, there were those who reckoned (based on Zech. 13) that prophecy had ceased. This faction maintained that there were no true prophets in their day.  They also maintained that literature of a prophetic character could not be genuine teachings from God. 	By the time of c.65 CE, another faction had entered the mess.  Christians had come in claiming that THEIR writings were also suitable to be read in synagogues and used for worship.  Therefore, the Palestinian Jewish leaders got together and stated that the books written from the time of Ben Sira (Sirach) onward were not sacred writings.  They justified this from Zech. 13.  In particular, they said, the writings of the Christians (called heretics) were not inspired. 	At about 90 CE, they codified things further by closing the canon in somewhat of an official sense at the Council of Jamnia.  A few books (Ecclesi- astes, Song of Songs, Esther) made it in after that date, but these were those which had been written prior to the official cut off point (the time of Ben Sira) for inclusion that they had established in order to keep out the Christian and Hellenistic writings. 	Jerome excluded the 'apocrypha' because they were not in use by Jews of his day and because they were (except for Sirach) not found in Hebrew in his time.  His criterion for separating them from the other pre-Christian writings was not based on 'inspiration'.
[William Christie asked about the Essene NT. Andrew Kille reponded >There is a collection of gospels which usually goes under the name of the >"Essene Gospel of Peace."  These are derived from the gnostics, not the >essenes, and are ostensibly translations from syriac texts of the fourth  >and fifth centuries (I vaguely recall; I can't find my copy right now). --clh]
In article <Apr.21.03.26.51.1993.1379@geneva.rutgers.edu>,  lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes: > Hi everyone,  > 	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I  > know that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our  > deeds, yet hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless,  > saying' You fools, do you still think that just believing is enough?'  >  > Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by  > themselves and not by God, according to Romans that person is still  > saved by there faith.  my $.02 - Yes and No.  I do not believe the above scenario is not possible.   Either they are believing and living (in at least some part) led by God, else  they are not.  Believing (intellectually, but waiting(?)) is not enough.    Especially important to remember is that no one can judge whether you are  so committed, nor can you judge someone else.  I guess the closest we can  come to know someone's situation is listening to their own statements.  This  can be fallible, as is our sense of communion one with another.  > But then there is the bit which says that God  > preferes someone who is cold to him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned)  > so a lukewarm Christian someone who knows and believes in God but doesn' > t make any attempt to live by the bible.   Regarding this passage, we need to remember that this is a letter to a church  (at Laodicea), people who are Of the Body of Christ. (Rev.3:14-16)  He talks  about their works.  A translation could say that he says their lack of  concern makes him sick (to the point of throwing up).  > Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what  > you do) as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the  > teachings of James in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being ' > spat-out'    Right, saving is by faith alone, except that faith does not come alone, if  you catch the two meanings.    I can offer the explanation that Jesus would that we were either "on fire  for Him" or so cold we knew we were not in His will and thus could be made  aware of our separation.  This is admonishment for His children, not eternal  damnation.
When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:  Luke 19:37
> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should  >  > ck        > out:   >         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) > In Christ's Love, > Bryan Whitsell  I was waiting for this. I think your question should be rephrased. The many verses of the Bible which condem homosexuality (by our beliefs) have been shoved down the throats of homosexuals for a long time by (well-meaning?) Christians. The question is how do they interpret these verses. Any discussion of any issue (this or any other issue) requires a proof of your case as well as a disproof of the opposing view. We are already familiar with those verses and many have proven to themselves that these condem homosexual behaviour. We must now establish reasons for not believing this to be true based on the interpretation of these scriptures given by someone who has come to grips with them.
In article <Apr.23.02.54.12.1993.3063@geneva.rutgers.edu>, salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) wrote:  > Jeff Fenholt claims to have once been a roadie for Black Sabbath. > He was never ever a musician in the band.  He was in St. Louis several > months back.  The poster I saw at the Christian bookstore I frequent > really turned me off.  It was addressed to all "Homosexuals, prostitutes, > drug addicts, alcoholics, and headbangers..." or something like that. >  > Well, if I showed up with my long hair and black leather jacket I > would have felt a little pre-judged.   I have seen Jeff Fenholt speak and I didn't find him judgemental.  I think that the wording for that add was certainly inappropriate, but I think they were trying to say that headbangers would like the program.  But I would NOT put headbangers in the same class as alcholics, etc.  it is condescending.  And I believe that Jeff was wearing black when I saw him.  By the way, Fenholt played Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar.  Personally, I'm a headbanger at times too, but I have a hard time with what most of the secular metal groups promote.  Free sex and drugs (my opinion that many promote these) aren't my thing.  I HAVE found several good Christian metal groups that I like.   Jon  ------------------------------------------------ Jon Ogden         - jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com Motorola Cellular - Advanced Products Division Voice: 708-632-2521      Data: 708-632-6086 ------------------------------------------------
In <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com writes:  > Here's a question that some friends and I were debating last night. > Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that >    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?        (Reasoning pertinent to believing Xians deleted for space)        It strikes me, for no apparent reason, that this is reversible. I.e., if I had proof that there existed a hell, in which I would be eternally punished for not believing in life, would that make me a Xian? (pardon my language) _Bloody_hell_no_!        ...Of course, being merely a reversal of your thinking, this doesn't add anything _new_ to the debate, but...  > Several friends disagreed, arguing the fear of hell was necessary > to motivate people to Christianity. To me that fatally undercuts the > message that God is love.        A point very well taken, IMNSHO.
Eugen Bigelow writes:  >It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no >argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John >10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus  >that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the  >OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51 >taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say >Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.  You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women sinned, as Paul wrote.  All of humanity cooperativley reblled against God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is transmitted from generation to generation.
From: dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag)  	How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage with  	Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will neither  	marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?  Footnotes in some bibles reference this verse to the Book of Tobit. Tobit is in the Septuagint. Goodspeed published it in a book called  "The Apocrypha". Most any bookstore will have this. At any rate, the Jews  of Christ's day had this book. It is a story mostly centered around the son of Tobit who was named Tobias. There was a young lady, Sarah, who had  entered the bridal chamber with seven brothers in succession. The brothers  all died in the chamber before consumating the marriage.  Tobias was entitled to have Sarah for his wife (3:17) because Tobias was her only relative and "...she was destined for [Tobias] from the beginning" (6:17).  Tobias took her to wife and was able to consumate the marriage. The  seven husbands would not have her as a partner in heaven. That does not  eliminate Tobias, her eighth husband. Tobit is a fun and interesting  story to read. It's kind of a mythical romance. It's a little shorter  than Esther.  The LDS also have scriptures that parallel and amplify Luke 20. Most  notably Doctrines and Covenants 132:15-16.  	"Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry  	her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as 	he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage 	are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of  	the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they  	are out of the world.  	"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor  	are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which 	angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are  	worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of  	glory."