waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.24.01.09.10.1993.4254@geneva.rutgers.edu> stoney@oyster.smcm.edu (Stanley Toney) writes: > Muslims, i fear have been given a lie from the   >fater of lies, Satan. They need Christ as do us all. > >stan toney stoney@oyster.smcm.edu >my opinions are my own, you may borrow them  just picked out this one point because it struck me.... why do you believe this?  muslims believe in many of the same things that christians and jews believe; they believe jesus, while not the messiah, is a prophet.  this seems to me to be much closer to christianity than other religions are.  (then again i tend to be somewhat liberal about others' beliefs.)  this also relates to the serbian "ethnic cleansing" question.  i have been waiting for condemnations of this and have seen very few.  HOW can we stand by and watch innocent people, even people whose beliefs we condemn, if this is the case (and don't get me wrong, the things fundamenalist muslims have to say about women make my blood boil), be tortured, raped (the stories about that made me physically ill), and killed?  jesus loves all, not just those who love him back -- and he would advocate kindness toward them (in the hopes of converting them, if that's the way you want to put it) rather than killing them.    i'm sorry i got off the subject here -- maybe i should have used a different title.  i did need to get this off my chest, however.  peace (shalom), vera shanti _______________________________________________________________________________ Hand over hand				noye@midway.uchicago.edu Doesn't seem so much			(Vera Noyes) Hand over hand				 Is the strength of the common touch	drop me a line if you're in the mood 	- Rush, "Hand Over Fist" _______________________________________________________________________________  [I am also worried about this issue.  I've made a posting under my own name earlier today.  I do not much want to discuss Moslem beliefs here.  This isn't the right group for it.  Their beliefs about Jesus appear to come as much from the Koran as the Bible.  This means that while they honor him, what they think he did and stood for differs in many ways from Christian beliefs about him.  But Moslem beliefs are an appropriate topic for soc.religion.islam.  As I'm sure you know, many Christians believe that you must accept Christ in order to be saved.  While Stanley's comment appears to be anti-Moslem, I would assume he would say the same thing about all religions other than Christianity.
In article <May.16.01.56.14.1993.6674@geneva.rutgers.edu>, sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson) wrote: > As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't > christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on > earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian > discussion list ?  I don't think we should draw borders around newsgroups, christians are free to read and post entries on the atheist newsgroups, and  muslims are free to so so in other groups as well.  It's up to each individual to define their time schedule concerning  postings. The problems we all have noticed on various newsgroups is the evangelistical method of telling that 'I am right, and you are wrong'. This is true of both theists and atheists.  Hopefully a more constructive dialogue between the groups  would help concerning assumptions and colorization of views.  Cheers, Kent
In article <Apr.24.01.08.03.1993.4202@geneva.rutgers.edu>, marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:  > Those with Bibles on hand can give the exact chapter & verse... > At the time Jesus told Peter that he was the "rock", He said > whatever you hold true on earth is held true in heaven, and  > whatever you don't hold true won't be true in heaven. >  > Therefore, with respect to marriage, the ceremony has to be > done by an RC priest. No big parties required. Just the priest, > the couple and witnesses. "Divorce" is not allowed. But anullments > are granted upon approval by either the bishop or the Pope  > (not sure if the Pope delegates this function). >  Maybe I'm a little tired but I can't seem to follow the logic here. If  whatever is held true on earth is held true in heaven how is it that a priest (RC only apparently) is required.   In fact if I read the next verse correctly (Matthew 18:19) I understand that for a marriage to take place only two are required to agree on earth touching one thing and it shall be done.  Todd   > --  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris' > marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      | > The Lost Los Angelino              |
In article 11779@geneva.rutgers.edu, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes: >In article <Apr.24.01.09.13.1993.4257@geneva.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: >None of the states currently recognize same-sex marriages, but I know >several couples whose "marriages" are more stable and loving and  >long-lasting than most of my legally married friends and relatives. >(This drives one friend's family crazy. His brothers have been >divorced twice, both his parents are divorced, and *he* - the "filthy >gay" - has been "married" to his partner for 20 years.) > Just because those  "marriages" are more stable and loving and long-lasting, doesn't make it right.  Same-sex partners could have been best friends, without getting sexually involved with each other.
In article <Apr.13.00.08.04.1993.28376@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:     In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:     >	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do    >have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a    >pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior    >who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the    >last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods    >anyway?     I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it.    It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows    when the second coming will take place.
Jerry Kaufman writes:  >The Bible says that He looks on the heart as the >final measure. From that perspective, in a grading context, the heart is >the final test.
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. :-)  Back to the original questions in this thread concerning Christians of  Jewish descent and the Law:  I always wonder when I see posts on this  subject whether the writers are Christians of Jewish descent relating  the life-decisions God has led them to or people who take only an  academic interest in the topic.  (Having known Seanna since she was nine  years old, I do know in this case.)  I admit that the answer to this  question affects the amount of weight I give to the writer's statement.
dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) writes:  >This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile >the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection >people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?  Here is the short answer: because only certain marriages are recorded in Heaven.  Now for the long answer:  In Doctrine and Covenants section 132, the  chapter discussing eternal marriage (and, yes, plural marriage), the distinction between sealings under the priesthood and other  marriages is revealed.    When "the children of this world marry, or are given in marriage" when they receive "the  resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Luke 20:34-35). Jesus was simply teaching that marriages "until death do you part" are not in force after death.  However, the Doctrine and Covenants continues  describing eternal marriage.  D&C 132:19    And again, verily I say unto you, if a  man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed this power and the keys  of this priesthood; ... [ shortened for brevity AI] and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels,  and the gods, which are set there, to their  exhaltation and glory in all things, as hath been  sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a  fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.  The Lord told Peter "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt 16:19). Do you doubt that Peter was given the power to  perform sealings? Peter thought so because he taught that husbands and wives were "heirs *together* of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7).  "In order to obtain the highest" (degree of celestial glory), a man must enter into this order of the priesthood" (D&C 131:2). When a man and wife are sealed they truly become  "one flesh" because their eternal "increase"  (destinies) are enjoined completely.  Our Father has an eternal companion (and maybe more because of the plural marriage conditions of the law) who participated in our creation and is equally concerned with our progress here.  There is no scriptural basis for this doctrine. If fact, the only mention of our Mother is in one verse of a hymn written early in the history of the Church:      O My Father      I had learned to call thee Father,     Through thy Spirit from on high,     But, until the key of knowledge     Was restored, I knew not why.     In the heav'ns are parents single?     No, the thought makes reason stare!     Truth is reason; truth eternal     Tells me I've a mother there.  Why don't we hear more about our Mother?  1.  Because our Father presides under Priesthood authority (which is not a calling for Her);  2.  Because we don't all (necessarily) have the same Mother it would be confusing for worship;  3.  Because our Father wishes to withhold Her name and titles because of how some people degrade sacred things.
Subject pretty much says it all - I'm looking for Johnny Hart's (creator of the B.C. comic stip) mailing address.  For those of you who haven't seen them, take a look at his strips for Good Friday and Easter Sunday.  Remarkable witness!  If anyone can help me get in touch with him, I'd really appreciate it!  I've contacted the paper that carries his strip and -- they'll get back to me with it!  Thanks for your help,  Dave Arndt St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church St. Peter, MN 56082
(Stephen A. Creps) writes:  	  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.  That last sentence of Steve's is an important one to remember.  There are certain things in the Catholic religion that cannot be completely comprehended by a human being.  Were this not the case, it would be good evidence that the religion was man-made.  In the case of predestination, you have to reconcile two things that would at first appear to be irreconcilable: the sovereignty of God's will over all things, and man's free will in deciding his own fate. Catholics believe in both!  But that doesn't mean that anyone has come up with a pat reconciliation...
Sheila Patterson writes: >          >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. ...  I'd like to remind people of the withering of the fig tree and Jesus driving the money changers et. al. out of the temple.  I think those were two instances of Christ showing anger (as part of His human side).
I'm compiling a bibliography on religious perspectives on esotericism, hermeticism, gnosticism, mysticism, occultism, alchemy and magic, and am interested in sources that others have found particularly interesting and insightful.  I'm especially interested in medieval works, such as _The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz_ and Arthurian legends.  Please feel free, too, to send personal opinions on any of the above, pro or con or anywhere in between.  Thanks much.
Is anybody using David Rapier's Hebrew Quiz software?  And can tell me how to *space* when typing in the Hebrew?  (space bar doesn't work, for me anyway...)  Email please; thanks.  Ken
In a previous article, dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) says:  >     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you? > >     I defy any theist to reply.        Well, despite what my mother told me about accepting dares, here goes.   You have to be very careful about what you mean by "question authority". Taken literally, it is nonsense. That which is authoratative is authoratative, and to say "I question to word of this authority" is ridiculous. If it is  open to question, it isn't an authority. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to question whether something is an authority. The catch phrase here should be "authenticate authority." Once you have authenticated your authority, you must believe what it says, or you are not treating it as an authority.   The difficulty is that authenticating an authority is not easy. You  can perhaps discredit a claim to authority by showing logical inconsistency in what it teaches, or by showing that it does not obey its own rules of discourse. But the fact that I cannot discredit something does not, in inself, accredit it. (Nor does the fact that I can convince myself and  other that I have discredited something necessarilly mean that it is false.) I cannot accredit an authority by independantly verifying its teachings,  because if I can independantly verify its teachings, I don't need an  authority. I need an authority only when there is information I need which I cannot get for myself. Thus, if I am to authenticate an authority, I must do it by some means other than by examining its teachings.   In practical matters we accept all kinds of authorities because we don't have time to rediscover fundamental knowledge for ourselves. Every scientist woring today assumes, on the authority of the scintific community, all sorts of knowledge which is necessary to his work but which he has not time to  verify for himself.  In spiritual matters, we accept authority because we have no direct source  ofinformation. We select our authorities based on various criteria. (I am a Catholic, in part, because the historical claims of the RC church seem the strongest.) Without authorities there would be no subject matter for belief, unless we simply made something up for ourselves (as many do).  The atheist position seems to be that there are no authorities. This is a reasonable assertion in itself, but it leads to a practical difficulty. If you reject all authority out of hand, you reject all possibility of every receiving information. Thus the atheist position can never possibly change. It is non-falsifiable and therefore unscintific.   To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very nature, prove anything.
In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu>, autry@magellan.stlouis.sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes: |> ... the subject of what the definition of |> Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the |> Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in |> Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian. |> ... |> So, is there common definition of what Christianity is?  The basic definition that I use is: 	The belief that Jesus was God incarnate. 	The belief that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead 	for our salvation. 	The acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.  This would include most Christian denominations, but exclude the Unitarians.
phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:  >In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:  >This is not true.  The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the >existence of God.  As much as some people accept their Church, their priests >or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not  >satisfy atheists.    You haven't fully explained the atheist position.  Many theists believe that there is "no proof of the existence of God" but choose to believe in him anyway.  I haven't yet found an argument for atheism that can't quickly be broken down to unprovable assumptions.  This isn't a problem with me (everybody needs to have a faith) but if you believe that you can provide a "purely  logical" argument for the nonexistence of God, I'd really like to see it.  >Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of >us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and >reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant >as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?  >You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if >we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since >we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less >valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?    Ahh...but when you use science and reason, you have faith in certain beliefs of the scientific method--for example:    The physical laws of the universe are stable.   Our observations of reality are a valid basis for a determination of truth.   Objective reality exists.   Logical argument is a valid way to answer all questions.      Can you prove any of these?
Over the years, I have met Christians who are not associated with any local church and are not members of any local church. This is an issue that may be very personal, but is important.  What does the Bible say about this and how can we encourage our friends with regard to this issue?
JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:  >... >The essential ingredient of a marriage is mutual commitment. Two >persons are considered to be married if and only if they have bound >themselves by mutual promises to live together as husband and wife, >forsaking all others, till death do them part. >  Does that imply that people who take marriage vows but aren't sincere are not married?
In article <May.9.05.42.10.1993.27614@athos.rutgers.edu>   daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes: > In article <May.7.01.10.03.1993.14583@athos.rutgers.edu>   crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck) writes: > > > >Along the way, she was married, happily, to a wonderful and > >supportive husband and gave birth to two sons.  Still, everything was not > >perfect for Jane, since she could never open up the deepest part of her > >soul to her husband.   .. > >One of the interesting things that Jane said in this whole discussion was > >"Homosexuality is not about what goes on in the bedroom."  She found that > >she was much more able to have a deep, committed relationship with a woman > >than a man.  Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole relationship. ...  It sounds like she has a problem.  She has a problem opening up to her husband so she is lesbian.  WHAT? In a marrige, a couple is supposed to open up to each other.  Because she didn't feel comfortable opening up to her husband she gets a divorce and comes to the conclusion that she is lesbian.  Before anyone gets maried they should make sure that they would feel comfortable "open up the deepest part of her soul to her husband".  "Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole relationship."  Did she think it was diffrent with a man. That might be her problem.
Mark Ashley's account of private revelation does not, as some might think, contradict my posting in which I said that the Catholic Church believes that public revelation, on which Catholic doctrine is based, ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  In that posting I made sure I used the word "public".  Public revelation contains God's truth intended for everyone to believe.  The revelation contained in the Bible is a significant subset of public revelation.  Private revelation is revelation that God gives to an individual.  He may speak directly to the individual, He may send an angel, or He may send the Virgin Mary or some lesser saint.  The only person who is required to believe a private revelation is the person to whom it is revealed. Devotional practices may be based on reported private revelations, but doctrines can not.  When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention, the Church may investigate it.  If the investigation indicates a likelihood that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God, it will be approved.  That means that it can be preached in the Church.  However, it is still true that no one is required to believe that it came from God.  A Catholic is free to deny the authenticity of even the most well attested and strongly approved private revelations, such as those at Fatima and Lourdes.  (I suspect that few if any Catholics do reject Fatima and Lourdes, but if any do their rejection of them does not mean they are not orthodox Catholics in good standing.)  I do not have at hand a list of the criteria the Church uses in evaluating an alleged private revelation--it's not something I need every day--but I know that one of the primary requirements is that nothing in the alleged private revelation can contradict anything known through public revelation ------- Marty Helgesen Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu