waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Hi All  Hope you all had a Blessed Easter. I have a document which I believe refutes the notion that the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is in schism, or that there has been any legitimate excommunication. If anyone is interested in reading the truth about this matter please email me and I'll send them the document via email. Its 26 pages long, so I wont be posting it on the news group.  Its titled       NEITHER SCHISMATIC NOR EXCOMMUNICATED       This article  was  originally  an  English	translation,  by  the     Society  of  Saint	Pius  X  in  Ireland, from the French Journal     'Courrier de Rome'.  The French  article,  in  its	turn,  was  a     translation  from  the  Italian of the Roman Newsletter 'Si Si No     No'.      This booklet contains the transcription, with some minor editing,     of	the  Irish  article, and was transcribed and produced by John     Clay, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.      (There is no copyright attached. Simon Shields)                          CONTENTS                                   NEITHER SCHISMATIC NOR EXCOMMUNICATED.......................1     CATHOLICS ON THE RACK.......................................1     THE CHOICE OF THE 'SENSUS FIDEI'............................3     AMBIGUITY...................................................4     THE CHURCH IS NOT BICEPHALOUS (TWO-HEADED)..................6     THE PERSON AND THE FUNCTION OF THE POPE.....................6     UNITY OF FAITH AND UNITY OF COMMUNION.......................8     THE CRITERIA OF CHOICE.....................................10     ECUMENISM - AN ATTACK ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH...........10     THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION WITHIN THE CHURCH..............11     EXTRAORDINARY DUTIES OF LAY PEOPLE.........................12     DUTIES AND POWERS OF BISHOPS...............................14     FROM THE FACT OF THEIR GREATER DUTIES......................14     FROM THE FACT OF THEIR GREATER POWER.......................14     THE POWER AND THE DUTY OF THE PAPACY.......................15     THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS....................................15     STATE AND RIGHT OF NECESSITY...............................16     1. THERE IS IN THE CHURCH A REAL STATE OF NECESSITY........17     FOR SOULS..................................................18     FOR SEMINARIANS............................................18     2. ALL THE ORDINARY MEANS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED..............19     3. THE ACT ITSELF IS NOT INTRINSICALLY EVIL AND THERE RESUL..........21     4. IN THE LIMITS OF EFFECTIVE REQUIREMENTS.................22     5. THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IS NOT PUT INTO QUESTION......23     THE EXCOMMUNICATION........................................24     CONCLUSION.................................................25     BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................26-31  God Bless ye all,    An Irish Fairwell  may the road rise to meet you may the wind be always at your back may the sun shine warm upon your face,  the rains fall soft upon your fields, and until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of his hand.
In article <Apr.24.01.08.17.1993.4217@geneva.rutgers.edu> shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon) writes: >The people who post to this particular newsgroup are either too cowardly,  <...more accusations about a worldwide conspiracy against blacks.>  Since Jesus was born in the Middle East, then I expect his human features to be similar to Middle Easterners at that point in time. And since the camera wasn't invented yet we can only guess what  he looked like. For example, with all the dinosaur bones we're digging up we still don't know if they were yellow-polka-dotted, or purplish-orange 8-). Likewise, I don't think anybody has a  picture of Jesus (is there ? 8-) ) So our current image of  Jesus is our best guess.  Okay. So let's assume that Jesus is black. Would that make you follow His techings ? Cause if you follow His teachings, skin  color becomes a moot point, anyway. What counts more in your life ? Your faith in Jesus or His skin color (as a human) ?  In the interest of historical accuracy, however, since Jesus was from Israel wouldn't His skin color be like any other Jew ? i.e. fair-skinned ? Although probably heavily tanned from the desert sun ? Experts in this area speak up !!! cause I'm not. 8-)    --
What is the proper way to dispose of old blessed palms? I`ve have a bunch that I`ve been holding onto.  In addition, my mom has been giving me her's.  I used to give them to my uncle who would burn them (and leave the ashes to seep into the ground).  Should I do the same?  Could I just bury them?  Could I add them to my compost bin?  Thanks in advance.
In article <Apr.7.23.20.08.1993.14209@athos.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes: >In <Apr.5.23.31.32.1993.23904@athos.rutgers.edu> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes: > >> Method                  Expected         Actual  >> ------                 Failure Rate    Failure Rate >> Abstinence                 0%              0%  > > >    These figures don't seem to take account of rape. Or is a woman who >is raped considered not to have been abstaining?  I no longer have the textbook, but abstinence was defined as something like "no contact between the penis and the vagina, vulva, or area  immediately surrounding the vulva, and no transfer of semen to the vagina, vulva, or area surrounding the vulva".    That is, abstinence wasn't discussed as "sex outside of marriage is morally wrong" but as keep  the sperm away from the ovum and conception  is impossible. The moral question I recall the teacher asking was, "is it okay to create a child if you aren't able to be a good parent yet?"  -jen  --
In article <Apr.13.00.09.02.1993.28445@athos.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >[Any former atheists converted by argument?} >This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are >any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent. >when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone >"knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even >the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is >often indistinguishable from a poor one.  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
In a previous article, mcovingt@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) says:  >In article <Apr.13.00.08.44.1993.28424@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes: >That is not necessarily unorthodox.  When Christians call God 'Father',  >we are using a metaphor.  The Bible in one place refers to God as being >like a mother.  God is neither a father nor a mother in the literal >sense; God has some of the attributes of both; the father metaphor is >usually used because (for most people at most times) it is the less >misleading of the two possibilities.  I don't know which passage you are refering to, but the passage I have often seen cited as an example of a mother image of God is Isaiah 49:15 "Can a woman forget her sucking child / that she should have no  compassion / on the son of her womb? / Even these may forget, /  yet I will not forget you."    This passage is *not* a mother image of God at all. The mother here is the image of the best human constancy can show, and it is  contrasted with the constancy of God. The mother figure here represents mankind, not God. --  ============================================================================== Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but  aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis ==============================================================================  [Luke 13:34   O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
In the Monday, May 10 morning edition of the San Jose Mercury News an article by Sandra Gonzales at the top of page 12A explained convicted killer David Edwin Mason's troubled childhood saying,  	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist 	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was 	tied to a workbench and gagged with a cloth after he accidently 	urinated on his mother when she walked under his bedroom window, 	court records show."  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 the Mexican community as a whole.  I'm sure Sandra Gonzales would be equally upset.  Why is it that open biggotry like this is practiced and encouraged by the San Jose Mercury News when it is pointed at the christian community?  Can a good christian continue to purchase newspapers and buy advertising in this kind of a newspaper?  This is really bad journalism.
vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:  > 	I just thought I'd share some words that I received in a letter  > from Moody Bible Institute a couple of months ago.  The words are by > James M. Stowell, the president of MBI. >  > 	"The other day, I was at the dry cleaner and the radio was playing. > It caught my attention because a talk show guest was criticizing evangelical > Christians, saying we believe in absolutes and think we are the only ones > who know what the absolutes are. >  > 	"He missed the point.  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.  And, who is qualified to make these  determinations?  There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical  Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding  Biblical interpretation.  I find Mr. Stowell's statement terribly simple-minded.
Hi there,  	Does anyone know about any greek database/word processor that can do things like count occurrences of a word, letter et al?  	I'm posting this up for a friend who studies greek.  Thanks,  Nico.  P.S.	Can you email as I seldom look into usenet nowadays. -- +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ |  NICODEMUS CHAN,	               | Raffles Hall, NUS, Kent Ridge Cres. | |  Department of Information Systems   | Singapore 0511. (Tel : 02-7797751)  | |              & Computer Science,     | [Hometown Address]:                 | |  National University of Singapore.   | 134, Nanyang Estate, Jinjang North  | |  Kent Ridge Crescent,                | 52000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia       | |  SINGAPORE 0511                      | E-Mail : isc10144@nusunix.nus.sg    | |                                      |          channico@iscs.nus.sg       | +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
In article <May.11.02.37.03.1993.28114@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes: > >really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and >i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to >accept predestination.  my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing >gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious >result that human beings are not held responsible for their own >actions!  i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.     The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in both.
On Sun 2 May 1993, Damon wrote:   > A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never  > created, we could not exists. Therefore we were created, and  > therefore there exists a Creator.  I hesitate to comment on the validity of this, because I do not know what your friend meant by it. If he meant that whatever exists must have been created, then he is open to the obvious retort that God exists, and so God must have been created.  Perhaps your friend meant that we exist now but that there was a time when we did not exist, and therefore something other than ourselves must have brought us into existence. This seems plausible, but an atheist might reply, "So my parents engendered me. So what?" Here your friend would have to explain why an infinite regress of causes is not a satisfactory explanation. He would have some support from philosophers who are not ordinarily considered religious (Ayn Rand, and some others who are in the tradition of Aristotle). Having argued for a First Cause, he would have to bridge the gap between said entity and the God of Abraham. If he merely asserts that the things we observe are ultimately dependent on things radically unlike them, few physicists would disagree.
Who is Ram Das?  According to his brochures, he is a.k.a. Richard Alpert, PhD, and is somehow associated with the:    Seva Foundation   8 N. San Pedro Road   San Rafael, CA  94903  and the:   Hanuman Foundation    524 San Anselmo Ave #203   San Anselmo, CA  94960  He speaks publically on such topics as "Consciousness & Current Events," and has written some books and recorded some tapes on  similar subjects.    Why do I care?  My wife wants to go to one of his lectures.  When I asked why, she said Ram Das was "the greatest spiritual leader of our time!"  Several years ago my wife got involved with a religious cult, and we went through 9 months of hell that almost ended our marriage  before she quit.  Let's just say I'm concerned about this Ram Das and her interest, especially so with the recent religious cult events from Texas.  I need information - solid and real - so I  know what I'm dealing with.  If you have any information about Ram Das or the organizations  shown above, I would be very interested in your correspondence. Please reply via e-mail to me at:  scott%hpsdde@SDD.HP.COM  Thank you!    -- Scott Roleson
A reply to a post by kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (aka Nancy's Sweetheart):   ?Human brains are infested with sin, and they can only be trusted ?in very limited circumstances.  I would beg to differ with you here.  The properly-formed conscience can be trusted virtually ALL the time.  I am not so sure, though, about something so materialistic as the human brain.  Does that mass of tissue possess anything trustworthy?  Your observation would probably be valid if we were discussing the "mind" of an animal, but the human being is only half animal, as it were; and half spiritual.   ?At the moment he stops speaking, and people start interpreting, the ?possibility of error appears.  Did he mean that literally or not?  We do ?not have any record that he elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of ?Tran- or Con- substatiation?   He didn't say.  We interpret this passage ?using our brains; we think and reason and draw conclusions.  But we know ?that our brains are not perfect: our thinking often leads us wrong.  (This ?is something that most of us have direct experience of.  8-)  Now you have hit on the purpose of the Church.  It is by necessity the infallible interpreter of divine revelation.  Without the Church,           Christianity would be nothing more than a bunch of little divisive sects.   ?Unless you are infallible, there are very few things you can be certain ?of.  To the extent that doctrines rely on fallible human thinking, they ?cannot be certain.  This argument of yours regarding the certainty of an observation or a conclusion is not necessarily substantiated by experience.  It reminds me of the theoretical physicist who said that you can never be certain of a measurment because the sensor interferes with the field you are trying to measure.  Now, the experimental physicist will reply that although the measurement can never be made with absolute certainty, he is able to determine the certainty with which the measurement can be made, and this knowledge is often sufficient to render the measurement useful enough to allow evidence of the true condition of the field under observation. Therefore, although our minds are finite and susceptible to error, our competence in arriving at inductive insights gives confidence in our ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true, even in areas not subject to the experimental method.   ?Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu ?"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some ? Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood* ? some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon  This quote seems a little arrogant, don't you think?   --  boundary
Does anyone know any good decipleship trainning program during min August  to end of Sept.  Or any missionary programs. I currently belong to the Missionary Alliance Church in Oregon. Please reply by mail.  thanks.
In article <May.14.02.10.02.1993.25119@athos.rutgers.edu> alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes: >From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) >PS. Just to make it clear, I don't do ( and have never tried ) OOBEs. >    I tend to think they are off limits for Christians.
Responding to the moderator:  >In article <Apr.14.03.09.07.1993.5494@athos.rutgers.edu> alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin) writes: >> >>Choosing what to believe and rely on are important areas of personal  >>sovereignty.  What bothers me is when others suggest that, in these  >>matters of faith, their specific beliefs are not only true to them  >>but are absolute and should be binding on others.  It follows from this >>that God must give everyone the same revelation of truth, and thus  >>anyone who comes to a different conclusion is intentionally choosing >>the wrong path.  This is the arrogance I see; a lack of respect for the >>honest conclusions of others on matters which are between them and God. > >[It is certainly reasonable to ask for some humility about our own >ability to know the truth.  There are also different paths in some >areas of practice.  But I'd like to see more clarification about what >you mean when you reject the idea of saying "their specific beliefs >are not only true to them but are absolute and should be binding on >others."  If something is true, it is true for everyone, assuming that >the belief is something about God, history, etc....  Yes, I agree.  What I'm trying to point out is that, in matters of faith (i.e. tenets which are not logically persuasive), one may be convinced of the truth of certain things through, for instance, personal revelation.  And its certainly fine to share that revelation or those beliefs with others.  And I don't think that its arrogant, persay, to accepts matters of pure faith as truth for oneself.  Where I think the conflict arises is in assuming that, where disagreements on beliefs arise, all others *must* have been given the same truth, and that God  must reveal His truth to everyone in such a way that all would  honestly agree.  I think this can lead to the conclusion that anyone  who disagrees with you are being sinful or dishonest; that they are  rejecting something they *know* to be truth because it is inconvenient  for them, or because they wish to spurn God.  I would say that this is equivalent to assuming that *all* truths one  holds are universal and absolute.  And the problem I see with this is  that it negates the individuality of humans and their relationships with God.  This does not mean there is no absolute truth; just that some areas of doctrinal disagreement may be areas where God has not established or  revealed that truth.    --  comments, criticism welcome... -Ken alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu
Then by that definition, I would be in a cell church only here at IU, not when the whole group gets together at Indianapolis (>950 every week in attendance).
Are 'Moody Monthly' and 'Moody' the same magazine (name change in recent years)?  If not: Could someone post the address to 'Moody Monthly'?  :)avid
In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes: >I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a >lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents? >In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously >you aren't morally responsible for your actions.  But if you can contrive >to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies. >  Well I am one of those (apparently) odd people who can sometimes control their dreams.  For example, I might decide before going to sleep that I want to repeat a favourite dream, or dream about a specific place.  Or if I am having an unpleasant dream, I can often (not always) redirect events to something more pleasant.  I guess I think that the same standards apply in these "directed" dreams as apply in waking fantasies or real life (ref Jesus teaching about looking at a woman lustfully being the same a committing adultary).  When my normal dreams display themes that I would not conciously chose to dream about, I take that as a sign that all is not well with my "inner life" - maybe I have underlying tenstions/fears that need to be resolved, or maybe its straightforward sin.  In either case, the cause needs to be resolved.    In fact, either case is pretty rare.  I don't often remember dreams that I don't chose to have.  When I do, they almost always tell me something important. I also almost never dream in pictures, and especially not in colour (in fact I've had precisely one full colour picture dream that I can remember, and it was definately spiritually important) I tend to dream in sound, with the odd blurred image, in black and white.  Interesting topic - I'll be fascinated to read other responses.  Alison