waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes: >I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but  >definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion >about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the >effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus  >as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew, >buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not >believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be  >lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only >god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.  Dear Tim:  You say that you were a "catholic," but if you do not believe in the Christian God (I suppose that means the God of the Bible) and publicly state this,    you are in all probability not a Roman Catholic.  "Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1960, Ludwig Ott, p. 311).  All is not lost, however, as you still might belong spiritually to the Church by your desire to belong to it.  As you said, only God can judge the condition of a man's soul.  About judgment, on the other hand, St. Paul  1 Cor 5:12) urges Christians to judge their fellow Christians.  Following the Apostle's teaching, I judge that you should reconsider    returning to the Christian fold and embrace the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  He is the God who lives.    Concerning what you were told about non-believers when you were a catholic, that is true.  As I have posted before, Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, II,    n. 16) teaches: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Chruch, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."    Responding to your solicitation for opinions on the thinking processes of God, the best I can do is refer you to Scripture.  Scripture is one of the best sources for learning what can be known about God.    Stick with the best. --  boundary, the catechist
In article <May.5.02.53.16.1993.28886@athos.rutgers.edu> jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship) writes:   > >"Jesus Only" and "Oneness" tend to refer to groups that do deny the >trinity.    ..... >They explain Matthew by saying that Jesus is the name of the Father, Jesus >is the name of the Son, and Jesus is the name of the name of the Holy >Spirit, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit referring to different roles, all >filled by Jesus. ....   IMHO this are going from bad to worse. 3-in-1, 1-in-3 was bad enough.   I do not like a God who prays to Himself.  I refuse to believe Jesus prayed to Himself  --   let's get real, if the scriptures say He prayed to the Father, then the Father IS someone different than the Son.  I have no problems with multiple Gods.  To me, the whole context of the scriptures says:  Be perfect, even as your Father Who is in Heaven; that we can be co-heirs with Christ; that we will be like Him.   Co-heirs share all things equally--including knowledge, power, dominion etc. When I am like Him (Christ), I will be the same as HE is--and He is a God.   If God cannot do this, the His is not all powerful--and He is NOT God. If He will not, He is a Liar--and He is NOT God.   But if He does, He is the greatest of all the Gods.
shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes: >In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu>  >mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes: >  >>I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see  >no  >>Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.   >  >Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the  >celebration  >of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians >were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered >too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous >for the individual Christian who might be identified. >  >Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) [.sig deleted for brevity]  Larry -  Thanks for the reply, but this isn't quite the same thing.  Like I said before,  I can understand why non-Christians would be denied *access* to holy  ceremonies, but the ceremony itself (communion) was not secret.  In fact, all  four gospels record the first "breaking of the bread" in some detail.   Communion was a fellowship meal, and it was (and still should be, in my  opinion) inappropriate to invite those who did not share in the fellowship of  the Body of Christ.  The fact that unbelievers, denied access to these communal  meals, began to imagine all sorts of secret and debased rituals during  communion does not by any means imply that the early Christians were in fact  hiding shameful things from the general public.  In fact, I think if you read  some of the early church fathers, you will find that they were not at all  bashful about describing what went on during communion.  That's why it seems  funny to me when Mormons, who claim to be the only true restoration of 1st  century Christianity, insist on hiding certain rituals on the grounds that they  are "too sacred."  - Mark
In article <Apr.12.03.44.24.1993.18836@athos.rutgers.edu> dmn@kepler.unh.edu (There's a seeker born every minute.) writes:  >    That would depend on what Heaven is like. If God is a King, and  >an eternity in heaven consists of giving thanks and praise to the King, >I might opt for Hell. I read a lovely account of a missionary trying to  But then, on the other hand, if you really loved that King more than you did yourself, and He loved you to the point of assuring you that the eternal time spent with him would be eternal ecstasy, would you really opt for that choice?  >    Dana
by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano) writes:  >...does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the >environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into >pantheism?  >I've debated this quite a bit, and while I think a legitimate >concern for the planet is a great thing, I can easily see it >being perverted into something dangerous.    Many pagans are involved in environmentalism--this is only natural, since respect for the earth is a fundamental tenet of all pagan denominations.  This doesn't mean that environmentalism is wrong, any more than supporting peace in the Middle East is wrong because Jews and Muslims also work for it.    Nonetheless, paganism is certainly on the rise, and we as Christians should address this and look at what draws people from paganism to Christianity.  Like it or not, pagan religions are addressing needs that Christianity should be, and isn't.     I believe that paganism has hit upon some major truths that Christianity has forgotten.  This doesn't mean that paganism is right, but it does mean that we have something to learn from the pagan movement.   First, paganism respects the feminine.  Christianity has a long history of oppressing women, and many (if not most) male Christians are still unable to live in a non-sexist manner.  The idea that God is sexless, or that Christ  could have been a women and still accomplished his mission, is met with a great deal of resistance.  This insistance on a male-dominated theology (and the  male-dominated society that goes with it) drives away many young women who have had to put up with sexist attitudes in their churches.   Second, paganism respects the physical world.  This is an idea with great ramifications.  One of these is environmentalism--respect for our surroundings and our world.  Another is integration of sexuality.  Christianity has a long tradition of calling ALL sexual feeelings sinful and urging people to suppress and deny their sexuality.  This is too much--sex is clearly a part of human experience and attempting to remove it is simply not a feasible option.   Christianity has only begun to develop a workable sexual ethic, and paganism is an attractive option.   I'm not advocating that Christian doctrines (no sex before marriage, etc.) should be changed--just that Christians work toward a more moderate ethic of sexuality.  Denial of sexuality places as much emphasis on sex as unmoderated sexuality, and neither one does much to bring us closer to God.
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go."
Several replies to my post have said that I should get to know   Christian homosexuals before judging them.  I maintain that I was not   judging them by saying that homosexuality is wrong.   I would like to   look at the responces to my post and make a general sterotypical   evaluation of the people who responded to the side of Christianity   and homosexuality being compatible (admitedly not all are homosexuals   but I know that many are from their e-mail responces).  I don't   normally make sterotypical assumptions about groups of people, but   since I have been asked to by many of the opposing veiw point I will.  So far people have made wild assumptions, put me down because I don't   have the resources of others, and even reverted to name calling.  If   you don't think this is an acurate representation then those of you   who are homosexual Christians show me the diffrence.
The last state church was in Massachusetts.  Sam Adams, the patriot-brewmaster, during his tenure as governor after the Revolutionary War got it passed. I believe it was eliminated around 1820.
I was wondering if anyone knew any changes to the temple ceremony within the last fifty years.... Also, why do you think they were made (revelation,  assimilation to mainstream Christianity, etc.)? I know that the God Makers was published quite a while ago.  Could rituals have been changed since then?  I am also very interested in the influence of Freemasonry on early Mormonism, especially in the Smith family and  in the Nauvoo settlement.  Info on any new studies would  be appreciated.  Thanks,
Quoth the Moderator:  >I have to say that I some qualms about giving you this explanation, >because it raises additional problems: If God is the source of all >existence, then a complete separation from him would make existence >itself impossible.  So, does God maintain just enough connection with >those who are rejected to keep them in existence so he can punish >them?  In a short poem ("God in His mercy made / the fixed pains of Hell"), C. S. Lewis expresses an idea that I'm sure was current among others, but I haven't be able to find its source:  that even Hell is an expression of mercy, because God limits the amount of separation from Him, and hence the amount of agony, that one can achieve.
|JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                                 |Joe Moore writes:                                                      |                                                                       | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at            | > Lourdes.  She referred 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.                                          |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,         |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the       |Pope.                                                                  |                                                                       | Yours,                                                                | James Kiefer  I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions. She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were living in a prison cell of some sort.  She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about  what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.   For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since  Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception". So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her way to the priest...  The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then. But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.  (Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little water flowed but after several years there is more water  flowing.)  -Marida  "...spreading God's words through actions..."  -Mother Teresa
To recapitulate a bit:  - The essence of marriage is two people's commitment to each other.  - If two people claim to be married "in their hearts" but are not   willing to have the marriage recognized by church and state, that's   prima facie evidence that the commitment isn't really there.  - There are obvious situations in which Christian marriage is possible   without a civil or church wedding: if you're stranded on a desert   island, or if your state forbids the marriage for an unjust reason   (e.g., laws against interracial marriage).  - The legal concept of "common-law marriage" is meant to ensure that   the state will recognize marriages that did not start out with the   usual ceremony and record-keeping.  - Pastorally, I'm concerned that people should not use "being married   in God's eyes" as an excuse for living together without a formal wedding.   One has a duty to have one's marriage properly recorded and witnessed.    - But there are also people who have been through a wedding ceremony   without making a genuine commitment, and therefore are not married   in God's eyes.  Right? --  :-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    ***** :-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  ********* :-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  * :-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><
(MODERATOR: THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN EARLIER, MORE CLUMSILY WORDED SUBMISSION ON THE SAME TOPIC WHICH I SUBMITTED A FEW MINUTES AGO.)  I think we need to distinguish etymology from meaning.  Regardless of how the word 'Easter' *originated*, the fact is that it does not *now* mean anything to Christians other than 'the feast day of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ'.   The meaning of a word is _only_ what people understand it to mean.  And the same goes for other cultural practices.  The festival of Easter may possibly have some historical association with some pagan festival, but *today* there are, as far as I know, no Christians who *intend* to honor any kind of "pagan goddess" by celebrating Easter.  It is nonsense to say "this word (or this practice) 'really' means so- and-so even though nobody realizes it."  Words and practices don't mean things, people do.    (This is basic semantics; I'm a linguist; they pay me to think about things like this.) --  :-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    ***** :-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  ********* :-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  * :-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><
I'm about to revise my resume and was wondering if I should put on there the fact that I'm a Christian.  Give me some input on what you think.
Most of you will have probably seen the news by the time you read this, but the Branch Davidian compound is no more.  This morning about 6:00, the feds punched holes in the compound walls by using a tank.  They  then started using non-lethal tear gas.  Shortly after noon, 2 cult members were seen setting fire to the compound.  So far, about 20-30 people have been seen outside the compound.  The fate of the other 60 or 70 people is unknown, neither is the fate of the 17 children that were inside.  The compound did burn to the ground.  Koresh, who at times has claimed to be the Messiah, but then backed off and only claimed to be a prophet, had promised several times to come out peacefully if his demands were met.  First, he demanded that his message be broadcast on the radio, which it was, but he didn't come out. He claimed to be waiting for a message from God.  Finally, he said that God told him that he needed to decipher the mystery of the 7 seals in Revelation, and when he was finished, he'd come out.  He finished the first one, but didn't do any more work that anyone knows of since then. The federal agents did warn him that if they didn't come out, they  would be subjected to tear gas.  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 think it underscores the importance of putting you faith only in things that are eternal and knowing for yourself what the Scriptures say and what they mean, instead of relying on others to do it for you, even if those others are learned and mean well.
jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:  > I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my > wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last fe > years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's > driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is > that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how  > do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we  > present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.  On the one hand there are advantages to having the liturgy stay the  same.  John has described some of these.  On the other hand, some people  seem to start tuning out `the same old words' and pay attention better  when things get changed around.  I think innovative priests and liturgy  committees are trying to get our attention and make things more  meaningful for us.  It drives me crazy too.   Different people have differing preferences and needs in liturgy.  My  local parish is innovative.  I prefer to go to Mass at the next parish  over.  Sometimes we don't have the option of attending a Mass in the  style which best suits us.  John put a smiley on it but to "just offer  it up" probably is the solution.  A related issue, that it sounds like John does not have to deal with, is  that spouses may have different liturgical tastes.  My husband does like  innovative litury.  It is a challenge to meet both of our spiritual  needs without just going our separate ways.  When you include the factor  of also trying to satisfy our children's needs, things get pretty  complicated.  One thing to remember is that even the most uncongenial Mass is still  Mass.
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.  Jesus came to 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.  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. (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.  Mike   In article 28885@athos.rutgers.edu, oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes: In article <Apr.10.05.33.59.1993.14428@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: >The two historic facts that I think the most important are these: > >(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something >else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact. > >(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the >Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so >(it would have discredited the Christians).  And the two simplest refutations are these:  (1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament. I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years after the supposed event.  (2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers). Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.
Someone writing anonymously asks:  > Would you have become a Christian if you had not > been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about > any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim > you are brain washed.  I *did* become a Christian without having been indoctrinated by my parents, and having studied Buddhism fairly carefully and other religions to a lesser degree.  I made a decision to accept the truth-claims of Christianity after having given it a lot of thought.  (I have to point out that the process was not purely a cold, rational one: there was a powerful experiential element as well. Also, my Calvinist should rest assured that I don't lay any of the responsibility for the outcome [my conversion] on anyone but God.)  It took me years and years for this all to happen, because I had many of the objections that this poster puts forward.  I grew up in the shadow of [generic authoritarian conservative denomination], and I *knew* that that wasn't a way of life that I could adopt.  But I gradually learned not to tar all of Christianity with the same brush, and realized quite suddenly one cold winter night that I accepted what I had heretofore rejected.  I am quite certain that I was not "brain-washed".