waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:  >But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel"  >Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only  >parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original  >Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated  >mission?  If you want parallels the best source is probably the book _Temple and Cosmos_ by Hugh Nibley.  It is not light reading however.  As to why these early practices "only parallel" and do not exactly duplicate the modern LDS ceremony, there are a couple of reasons:  1.  Quite likely we do not have the exact original from ancient times.  This stuff was not commonly known but bits and pieces undoubtedly spread.  (Much as bits and pieces of the modern ceremony get known.)  What we have in the 40 day literature, the Egyptian ceremonies, and certain Native American ceremonies is almost certainly not exactly what Jesus taught.
wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:  >Especially as we approach a time when Scientists are trying to match God's  >ability to create life, we should use the utmost caution.    I question the implications of this statement; namely, that there are certain physical acts which are limited to God and that attempting to replicate these acts is blasphemy against God.  God caused a bush to burn without being consumed--if I do the same thing, am I usurping God's role?     Religious people are threatened by science because it has been systematically removing the physical "proofs" of God's existence.  As time goes on we have to rely more and more on faith and the spiritual world to relate to God becuase science is removing our props.  I don't think this is a bad thing.
Mark Gregory Foster writes (concerning 1 Corinthians 16:2):   > The idea was introduced to me once that the reason Paul wanted  > the Corinthians to lay aside money for the collection on the  > first day of the week was that this was when they received their  > weekly wages.  But the ancient Romans did not observe a seven-day week.  Unless a man was working for a Jewish employer, he is unlikely to have been paid on the first day of a seven-day week. Nor would a Jewish employer have kept his wages over the week-end (see Lev 19:13; Dt 24:15).
In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:  >Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check   >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)  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.
According to mdbs@ms.uky.edu, muslims tithe 1/6 of their income.  Perhaps there are some offshoots of Islam that impose this on their followers.  But the standard tithe is 1/40 of one's net worth, once a year.  The same writer also objects to the Bible for teaching that   > "woman was created after man, to be his helper" etc.  This is presumably a reference to Genesis 2. Suppose that that chapter had been written with the sexes reversed. We have God creating woman, and then saying, "It is not good that woman should be alone. I will make a help meet for her." Feminists would be outraged. The clear implication would be that God had started at the bottom and worked up, making first the plants, then the fish and birds, then the beasts, then woman, and finally His masterpiece, the Male Chauvinist Pig. The statement that woman is not capable of functioning by herself, that she needs a man to open doors for her, would have been seen as a particularly gratuitous insult. The fact that the creation of woman from the dust of the ground was given only briefly and in general, while the creation of the Man was given in six times the number of words, would have been cited as evidence of the author's estimate of the relative importance of the sexes. The verdict would have been unequivocal. "No self-respecting woman can accept this book as a moral guide, or as anything but sexist trash!" I suggest that Moses, fearing this reaction, altered his original draft and described the creation with Adam first and then Eve, so as to appease Miriam and other radical feminists of the day. For some reason, however, it did not work.
Hooray ! I always suspected that I was human too :-)  It is the desire to be like Christ that often causes christians to be very critical of themselves and other christians. We are supposed to grow, mature, endeavour to be Christ-like but we are far far far from perfect. Build up the body of Christ, don't tear it down, and that includes yourself. Jesus loves me just the way I am today, tomorrow and always (thank God ! :-).
In article <Apr.10.05.33.25.1993.14413@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes: >seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes: > >> In Quebec French, the word for the celebration of the resurrection is >> "Pa^ques"--this is etymologically related to Pesach (Passover) and the >> pascal lamb.  So is the French Canadian (mostly Roman Catholic) celebration >> better because it uses the right name? > >I was at my parents' Seder and noticed the labelling on one of the  >packages was English, Hebrew and French.  In the phrase "kosher for  >passover" the French word used was "Pa^ques."   We've deliberately  >mistranslated this at the Kulikauskas home and keep referring to foods  >being kosher for Easter. :-)  however, the word "pa^ques" in french _is_ the word for easter.  ask any francophone, whether from quebec or from paris.  besides, haven't you heard of the phrase "the paschal lamb" (meaning jesus)?  sorry to nitpick on the more trivial part of this thread....
In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes: >vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes: > >No, IMO, Mr. Stowell missed the point. > >> 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant >> moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His >> truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance >> of those absolutes." > >Mr. Stowell seems to have jumped rather strangely from truth to absolutes. >I don't see how that necessarily follows.   > >Are all truths also absolutes? >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)? > >If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can  >explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and >which truths are absolutes.    The answer to both questions is yes.  All Scripture is true, being inspired by God.  The evidence for this claim has been discussed ad nauseum in this group.  Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a  contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a contradiction in terms.    Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world.  Such a statement is terribly self-contradictory.  Let me put it to you this way.  If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement, "There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?  Obviously, we have a contradiction here.  This is just one of the reasons why Christians defy the world by claiming that there are indeed absolutes in the universe.  >There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical  >Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding  >Biblical interpretation.  So?  People sometimes disagree about what is true.  This does not negate the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe.  Moreover, evangelical Christianity, at least, still professes to believe in certain truths.  Man is sinful, man needs salvation, and Jesus is the propitiation for mankind's sins, to name a few.  Any group that does not profess to believe these statements cannot be accurately called evangelical.
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:  >   To summarize, you accused the original poster of saying if something >is not forbidden by the Bible, then that proves it is OK; i.e. if >something cannot be disproven, it is true.  He rather seemed to be
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?  |>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? |>
Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:  >And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have >been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting >somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.    This is a good point.  Christ was hardly the only person who claimed to be the Messiah--in fact, a number of "Messiahs" were active in the area from the time of the Roman conquest to after the fall of Masada.   Many of the statements made by the apostles--especially their repeated attempts to give Jesus a sword (give him military power) point to the fact that they didn't realize the true nature of his reign until after the fact.  Many of the statements in the Bible can be seen as being oriented toward explaining  this new definition of "Messiah" to the Jews who were being preached to.
XOPR131@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Gerald McPherson) writes:  >   If you reject the claims of Jesus, and still go to >   heaven, then the joke's on me. If you reject him and go to hell, >   that's no joke, but it will be final.  If this is God's attitude, then I'll think I'll go along with Terry Pratchett's religious philosophy:  "Oh, I believe in God. I just don't actually _like_ the blighter."  P.
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.  I'll pose a question here that's got me thinking:  what distinguishes "true" religion from cults (I'm speaking generally here, not specifially about Christianity)?  Jerry Falwell was on Good Morning America on  Tuesday ostensibly to answer this question.  Basically, he said that true religion follows a message whereas a cult follows a person. But, then, Christianity is a cult because the message of Christianity IS the person of Jesus.  So what distinguishes, for example, the Branch Davidian "cult" from the Presbyterian "church"?  Doctrinal differences don't answer the question, IMHO, so don't use them as an answer.    -- Scott at Brandeis  	"But God demonstrates His     "The Lord bless you, and keep you; 	 own love for us, in that      the Lord make His face shine on you, 	 while we were yet sinners,    and be gracious to you; 	 Christ died for us."	       the Lord lift up His countenance on you, 				       and give you peace." 		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Numbers 6:24-26 [NASB]
Stephen A. Creps writes to All:  [...]   SAC> Also, we know that  SAC> the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.  Where exactly does it say that?   SAC> _Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the  SAC> contrary, i.e. an exception.  Since there is no exception listed in the  SAC> Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what  SAC> it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.  I think we do see an exception in the case of Cornelius and his household, mentioned in Acts. Of course, they were baptised, but only after "God showed that He accepted them by giving them the Holy Spirit". This means they were already acceptable to God before their baptism, and had they suddenly died they would have gone to heaven.  In case that seems far-fetched - an ancestor of mine was a missionary who worked among the Hereros in Namibia. Some of the tribesmen were jealous of Christianity, and they poisoned the first convert before he could be baptised. Surely he still went to heaven? I'm inclined to agree with a comment recorded at the time: "It is not the neglect of baptism, but its contempt, that condemns."  Mike
In article <Apr.19.05.12.31.1993.29175@athos.rutgers.edu>, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes: > In article <Apr.16.23.17.40.1993.1861@geneva.rutgers.edu<, mussack@austin.ibm.com writes... > << < For example: why does the universe exist at all?   >  > <Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager. > <If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely > <wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we > .. >  I find this view of Christianity to be quite disheartening and sad. > The idea that life only has meaning or importance if there is a Creator > does not seem like much of a basis for belief.  Please forgive all the inclusions. I suppose they are neccessary to follow the argument.  My point is that "if life has meaning or importance then we should try to find that meaning or importance" which is almost a tautology. (I hope I'm not being too patronizing.) One term for that meaning is "Creator", though that is not obvious from my above argument.  >  And the logic is also appalling: "God must exist because I want Him to."  (It's more like "I think, therefore I am, therefore God is.")  >  I have heard this line of "reasoning" before and wonder how prevalent > it is. Certainly in modern society many people are convinced life is > hopeless (or so the pollsters and newscasts state), but I don't see > where this is a good reason to become religious. If you want 'meaning' > why not just join a cult, such as in Waco? The leaders will give you > the security blanket you desire.  Unfortunately the term "religious" is ambiguous to me in this context. I could say that searching for meaning in life is by definition being religious. I could say cult followers by definition have given up on  the search.  If you want "meaning" why not search for the truth?  So far, my understanding of Christianity is congruent with my understanding of truth. There have been many before me who have come to conclusions  that are worded in ways that make sense to me. By no means does that imply that I understand everything.
In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes: > >Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how >God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that >if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one >amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner. >  Maybe before Babel,everyone including angels spoke the same language,so at Babel, God punished us by giving us languages different from the original one. So if that's the case,then angels now would be speaking in the tongue  mankind spoke before Babel.
In article <May.3.05.01.26.1993.9898@athos.rutgers.edu> todd@nickel.laurentian.ca writes: >{:>         Your roommate is correct.  The Immaculate Conception refers to >{:> the conception of Mary in Her mother's womb.   > >Okay, now that we've defined the Immaculate Conception Doctrine would it >be possible for those more knowledgeable in the area to give the biblically >or other support for it. I've attempted to come to terms with it previously >(in an attempt to understand it for learning purposes) and haven't been able >to grasp the reasoning.  > It was a gift from God.  I think basically the reasoning was that the tradition in the Church held that Mary was also without sin as was Jesus. As the tenets of faith developed, particularly with Augustine, sin was more and more equated with sex, and thus Mary was assumed to be a virgin for life (since she never sinned, and since she was the spouse of God, etc.) Since we also had this notion of original sin, ie. that man is born with a predisposition to sin, and since Mary did not have this predisposition because she did not ever sin, she didn't have original sin.  When science discovered the process of conception, the next step was to assume that Mary was conceived without original sin, the Immaculate Conception.  Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at Lourdes.  She  refered 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.  RCs hold that all revelation comes from two equally important sources, that being Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition.  In this case, mostly tradition.
In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes: >I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak >only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english). >Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues". >The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly >in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can >only hear himself speaking in his own language.  That would be neat, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that one who has the gift of tounges can do this.  If the gift of tounges were the ability to be understood by everyone, no matter what languages they know, there would be no need for the gift of interpretation, and I Corinthians 14 would not have had to have been written.    >Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were >glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd >witness a real miracle.  That's a pretty harsh assumption to make about a several million Christians world wide.  Sure, there are some who want glory for themselves who speak in tounges, just as there are among those who do not have this gift.  There were people like this in the Corinthian church also.  that does not mean that there is no true gift or that all who speak in tounges do it for their own glory in the sight of men.   I would venture to say that a large percentage of those who do speak in tounges  do so more often in private prayer than in public.  Link Hudson
In article 29279@athos.rutgers.edu, atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:  >  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the  >newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.   >Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...  >1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.  >2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death >   is unfair.  >  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,  >eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  This is the problem. This is not hell, this is permanent death. It is indeed what atheists (generally) expect and it is neither fair nor unfair, it just is. You might as well argue about whether being made mostly of carbon and water is "fair".  However, the atheists who claim that Hell is unfair are talking about the fire and brimstone place of endless suffering, which necessarily includes eternal existance (life, I dunno, but some sort of continuation); not at all the same thing.  Granted, you clearly feel that hell=death, but this is not a univeral sentiment as near as I can tell.  If *your* idea of God "condemns" heathens to ordinary death, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the gods that hide from humans and torture the unbelievers eternally for not guessing right.  [deletia- Hell, and Literalness.]  --- 			- Dan Johnson And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in you.  Isaiah 26:3
In article 1373@geneva.rutgers.edu, parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin) writes: >Another issue of importance.  Was the crucification the will of God or >a tragic mistake.  I believe it was a tragic mistake.  God's will can >never be accomplished through the disbelief of man.  I finished reading a very good book, "The Will of God", Weatherhead. This was very helpful to me in applying thought to the subject of the will of God.  Weatherhead broke the will of God into three distinct parts; intentional will, circumstancial will, and ultimate will.  He (Weatherhead) also refuted the last statement (above) by Michael Parkin above quite nicely.  Summarizing; _despite_ the failures of humankind, God's ultimate will is never to be defeated.  God's intentions may be interfered with, even temporarily defeated by the will of humankind, brought down by circumstance.  His ultimate will (the reconcilication of all humankind) will never be stopped.  Time after time, Weatherhead used the Cross as the best description of this process at work.  His points, paraphrased, were 1) God's intentional will was for Jesus, the Christ, to live out a full life and perform the work of the Living God.  2) The failures, sins, and deviousness of humankind frustrated God's intent for His Son.  3) Despite the circumstance, God's ultimate will was revealed in the Cross, as Jesus willingly ("not my will, Lord, but yours") died for the redemption of all humankind.  The Cross was utterly triumphant, overcoming even the most cruel of circumstances.  >this world to build the kingdom of heaven on the earth.  He >desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah.  If >the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this >cup pass from him.  Was this out of weakness.  NEVER.  Many men and >women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes. >Is Jesus less than these.  No he is not.  He knew the crucification >was NOT the will of GOD.   It was not the intentional will of God.  It was the circumstancial will, thus enabling the victory of the ultimate will.   > God's will was that the Jewish people accept >Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on >the earth with Jesus as it's head.   Right, intentional will.  (Just like the Jewish people >expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what >kind of world we would live in today.  It would be a very different >world.  And that is eactly what GOD wanted.  Men and women of that age >could have been saved by following the living Messiah while he was on >the earth.  Jesus could have established a sinless lineage that would >have continued his reign after his ascension to the spiritual world to >live with GOD.  Now the kingdom of heaven on the earth will have to >wait for Christ's return.  But when he returns will he be recognized >and will he find faith on this earth.  Isn't it about time for his >return.  It's been almost 2000 years.  We know neither the time nor the place.  He will return as a thief in the night.  Peace.  Rob