waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu 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) > But wouldn't that go for any sin.  My father told me when he was growing up Catholics were not allowed to associate with anyone who was divorced. There are a few verses prohibitting divorce.  Somehow, divorce became acceptable (even in Catholicism anullments).  Certainly it is no longer a sin to associate with a divorced person.  The point is that each person has their own temptations to deal with.  Paul repeatedly talks about the "thorn" in his side, some think it refers to lust, others pride, but who knows.  Whatever the thorn was, apparently it was not "compatible" with Christianity, yet does that make his epistles any less?  The Bible warns us against judging, greed, anxiety, impure thoughts, bearing grudges, etc., etc.  I suppose we should seek out all the so-called Christians who have entertained impure thoughts and oust them.  All those who have given in to greed, get 'em outta here.  Jesus pointed out that he was the physician for the sinners.  Any attempts to make homosexuals feel unwelcome because of our discomfort with homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity.  Is our hatred so deep that rather than see someone try to become closer to Jesus, we need to keep them away.  Does Jesus need us to screen out those guilty of a particular sin.  Do we really mistrust  Jesus when he says he can forgive any sin?  Think about it.  Among the people Jesus encountered were sinners and the Pharisees.  The sinners he embraced and forgave.  The Pharisees, hypocritcal, unmerciful, self-righteous, pointed out others sins and did not seek and thus did not gain forgiveness of their own sins.  What I take from this and other verses is that if we do not admit our sins, those sins will not be forgiven.  And since those guilty of even one sin are guilty of the whole law, those not repenting the judging of others are guilty, as guilty as if they committed the same sin they judged others of.  The poor in spirit, meek, humble, merciful, pure of heart, peacemakers,  those who thirst for justice, those who suffer for His sake are blessed.
mike@boulder.snsc.unr.edu (Mike McCormick) writes:  > Not honoring our wives can cause our prayers to be hindered: >  >         You husbands likewise, live with your wives in >         an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, >         since she is a woman;  and grant her honor as >         a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your >         prayers may not be hindered.  I Peter 3:7  One interpretation I've heard of this verse is that it refers to the sin  of physically abusing one's wife.  The husband is usually physically  stronger than his wife but is not permitted to use this to dominate her.   He must honor her as his sister in Christ.  This would therefore be an  example of a specific sin that blocks prayer.  This verse also makes me think of the kind of husband who decides what  is God's will for his family without consulting his wife.  God reveals  His will to both the husband and the wife.  There needs to be some  degree of mutuality in decision making.  Even those whose understanding  of the Bible leads to a belief in an authoritarian headship of the  husband need to incorporate this in order to have a functional family.   One way to look at it is that God speaks to the wife through the husband  and to the husband through the wife.
In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes: |> |> 	Parting Question: |> 		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.  You write as if no-one ever became a Christian except people from Christian families.  This is not true, as quite a few people on this group can attest (including me).
"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently,  often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality... but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.  Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not  something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the  stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so  strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and  do things which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even  believe what they are doing is a sin). After enough of this, the sinner begins to hate us (they certainly don't love us for our constant criticism of their behavior). Hate builds up and drives people away from God...this certainly cannot be a good way to build love.  In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our  neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he  commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We need to ask God to help us with our own sin, and to help those we love  with theirs. Only love can conquer sin...hatred has no place. The best way to love someone is to pray for them.   - Scott
ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:  [ Much deletion.  He is trying to explain the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.]  >	'Original sin' is the only reason (fallen) humanity >	dies. Adam and Eve would not have died had they >	not fallen.  If this is true than why in the Genesis story is God concerned that Adam and Eve might also eat from the Tree of Life and live forever and be like gods?  Eating of the tree of life would not take away the effects of eating of the Tree of Knowledge.  Is there any reason to assume that they had already eaten of the Tree of Life and so had already attained to eternal life?  If so, what basis is there for saying that this was taken away from them?  To me the wages of sin are a spiritual death, not necessarily a physical death.  I can attest to the truth of this interpretation from my own experience. I suspect that many others could attest to this as well.   Peace Will  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  | William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed | | Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may | | Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   | |	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
In article <May.9.05.38.18.1993.27323@athos.rutgers.edu> bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes: >In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu> >koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:  >> The concept of tongues as used at Pentecost seems an outdated concept >> now.  With the Bible available in nearly every language, and missionaries >> who are out there in ALL languages, why does the church need tongues?  >I guess there are at least some people who are not able to support >this claim. There are still a lot of languages without the Bible, or a >part of the Bible. There are still many languages which we are not >able to write, simply because the written version of the language has >not yet been defined!  Yes, I suppose that's true.  Of course, notice I qualified with NEARLY every language :-).  And there are missionaries out there who can speak every imaginable language AND dialect.  But then, the fact that not all languages have a WRITTEN gospel lends no credence to the  concept of "pentecost" type xenoglossolalia since most tongues occur not in these places of un-written language, but rather in churches full of people who do have a written language and a Bible in that language.
Alison J Wyld wrote to All:   AJW> Does anyone know of an English language edition that does not show the  AJW> verse (or even chapter) numbers.  [...]   clh> [The original NEB put verse numbers only in the margin   [...]  Kenneth Wuest's expanded translation of the New Testament does the same - it puts the range of verse numbers next to the top of each paragraph. Being an expanded translation it is quite verbose though - more suitable for detailed study than for quick reading.  Mike  --- GoldED 2.41
Hello,    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.  There's no reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad enough.   Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements as metaphorical.
In <Apr.20.03.02.03.1993.3788@geneva.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes: [">"= Mark, ">>"= mp]  >>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd >>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in >>ideological manipulation and cultural interference  >Good heavens, you mean my good friend Wes Collins, who took his wife and two  >small children into the jungles of Guatemala, despite dangers from primitive  >conditions and armed guerillas, so that the indigenous people groups their  >could have the Bible in their native languages--the young man who led Bible  >studies in our church, who daily demonstrated and declared his deep abiding  >faith in the Lord of Love--you mean he really was a sneaky imperialistic *SPY*      I am sorry you find these charges amusing, Mark. I understand your frustration though--it can be kind of scary to find your assumptions challenged. Some of the specific cultural interference to which I refer includes linguistic manipulation, for instance, their Tzotzil-Spanish dictionary removed both Spanish and Tzotzil words for concepts which are threatening to the ruling ideology, e.g., class, conquer, exploitation, repression, revolution, and described words which can express ideological concepts in examples like "Boss--the boss is good. He treats us well and pays us a good wage." As some of my students would say, "NOT!"        Your tone implies that you are unlikely to believe me--indeed, why should you? If you are interested enough to do some further research though, and you sound as if you are, here are some references for you.   Stoll, David. _Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire? The Wycliffe Bible Translators in Latin America_. _Sectas y Religiosidad en America Latina_. _Los Angeles Times_, Dec. 11. 1977. _Latin America Press_, May 19, 1983. _Washington Times_, June 22, 1984.       Happy hunting.
In article <May.14.02.11.24.1993.25195@athos.rutgers.edu> David.Bernard@central.sun.com writes: [ in response to a question about why Jesus' parents would be sanctified  beyond normal humanity] > >When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that >Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this >exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.  I would think that simply being pregnant with the incarnation of the  Almighty God would be enough to make Mary blessed among all women, whether or not she had special spiritual attributes.  I find that the more special Mary needs to be, the less human Jesus gets.
OFM writes:  >This is an issue throughout the Presbyterian Church.  On the other >side, one of the major churches in Cincinnati has been ordaining >homosexual elders, and has ignored Presbytery instructions not to do >so.  And the church in Rochester where the judicial commission said >they couldn't install a homosexual pastor has made her an >"evangelist".  These situations, as well as the one you describe, do >not appear to be stable.  This will certainly be a major topic for the >General Assembly next month.  If the church can't come up with a >solution that will let people live with each other, I think we're end >up with a split.  Clearly neither side wants that, but I think we'll >get pushed into it by actions of both sides. > >--clh]  The Moderator of the General Assembly, the Rev. John Fife, visited our church about a week ago (just 4 days after Rev. Spahr--it's been a busy week for our small church!!).  He was asked specifically about the issue of homosexuality and what he thinks will happen at the GA meeting next month.  Evidently, there are 15-20 known resolutions pending that range the gamut from "outlawing" homosexuality altogether to "legalizing" it completely.  He will readily admit that this is probabaly the most difficult issue that the church has had to deal with since the Presbyterian church split in two over the issue of slavery more than 100 years ago.  Without question, the issue may split the church again after we've been reunited for all of a dozen years or so.  He is hopeful that it will not and is pushing the same attitude that helped the church deal with the abortion issue last year as a solution.  He is hoping to pass a resolution that more or less states that we, the members of the church "Agree to Disagree" on the issue, admitting that both sides have honestly studied the Scriptures and had the Spirit lead them to different conclusions.  It worked last year when the abortion issue threatened to do more or less the same thing, and he is hopeful that the GA can foster a loving and caring attitude about people who disagree with their own view.  -- Cliff Slaughterbeck           |  Dept. of Physics, FM-15       |   It's time for the sermon on the University of Washington      |   Grand Torino! Seattle, WA 98195             |
hey folks,  I'm fairly new to these groups, tho' some have heard from me before.  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.  Now, there seem to be 3 alternatives:  1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena.  In this case no morality applies beyond what might be called 'mental hygiene', that is, not trying to think about anything evil, or indulgining in overly sexy or violent thoughts.  2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane') Evidence for this is that often dreams and OOBEs are sometimes done in common by more than one person.  A mark of objective fact is that >1 people report the same objective experience. In this case, the same interpersonal morality/ethics applies in dreams and OOBEs as does in waking life.  3) Like (2), but here we assume that though the dreeam and OOBE environs have a real existence, a different moral/ethics apply there, and no (or maybe  different) moral laws apply there.  So... There it is.  Is one of these cases the truth, or does anyone know of another alternative?  respond by post or email.  thanks very much  *dt*  ========================================================
In article <May.7.01.09.33.1993.14542@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes: >in history seems to imply some pretty serious sin. The one of the  >pastors in the church I attend, Christchurch City Elim, considers  >that a prophesy of a natural disaster as a "judgement from the Lord"  >is a clear sign that the "prophesy" is not from the Lord.   I would like to see his reasoning behind this.  You may have gotten  "burned" by natural disaster prophecies down there, but that does not mean that every natural disaster/judgement prophecy is false.  Take a quick look at the book of Jeremiah and it is obvious that judgement prophecies can be valid.  here in the US, it seems like we might have more of a problem with positive prophecies, though I am sure there may be a few people who are too into judgement.  Sometimes God does give words that are difficult to swallow.  The relative positiveness of a prophecy is not necesarily grounds to dismiss it.  Much of the OT is not happy stuff.
Are there any members of conservative, religious, politically active groups (such as the Christian Coalition) out there?  I come from a very liberal  background, and I'd like to talk to some conservative people out there in a  public forum (such as this one.)  I frankly can't understand the rationale or Christian basis for much of the conservative position, and I'd like to try and learn more about this movement--after all, we're part of the same church.  Is anyone interested in explaining a bit about the conservative viewpoint?   Thanks.
>[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage >you quote.  Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that >"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to >have a meaning like homosexual prostitute.    From what I understand of my experience in looking up this word, and  discussing it with a Greek-literate individual, the meaning of the  word is rather clear.  Basically it literally means "he who beds with a man" or "he who has sex with a man."  The burden of proof is on the  pro-homosexuality side of the argument to show that the word has an  idiomatic meaning nor evident from its literal meaning.  One can speculate all day long that it might mean something else, but we need evidence before we create new doctrines, and get rid of the historical understanding of the meaning of this word.  Link Hudson.
Bryan Whitsell (whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu) wrote: : Recently an e-mail to me mentioned:  : (Technically, the messengers aren't even human so : it *can't* be a case of "homosexuality" -- even of rape.) [...]  : The Jude reference to Sodom is also meaningful only in the context of : the Sodomites' "lust" for the "other flesh" of angels.  Again, : application to homosexual behavior in general, or to the position of : gay Christians is largeely specious. : *** : Are angels "flesh"? No. I feel that this is saying that it was because : of their lust after other men, who are flesh( or of this world).  : what are other opinons on this? I haven't heard much about this verse   : at all.  Bo Reike in the Anchor Bible volume on _James, Peter, and Jude_ points out that all the examples given in this section of Jude are distinguishing the elect from _apostates_, not just the wicked in general.  Hence, those who were delivered from Egypt, but did not follow Moses (and, by extension, God); the apostate angels; and Sodom and Gomorrah.  Quoting Reike:  	"Fornication may here, as often in the New Testament, 	refer to idolatry, while "flesh" (as in I Pet 1:24)  	denotes human society and its violent attempts at self- 	exaltation.  Sodom and Gommorrah represent the leaders 	of apostasy, and the surrounding cities correspond to 	their followers." [p. 199]   There is no inherent reason to read this verse (7) as literally referring to actual sexual lust for "alien flesh".  Nor is it inherently necessary to understand it as referring to homosexuality, outside of the circular reasoning that has already concluded that the sin of Sodom is the sin of homosexuality.  The only place that the sin of Sodom is specified, and not merely inferred, is in Ezekiel 16:49 "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, bit did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.  For the same reason (overliteralizing the text) your correspondent's suggestion that the reason the passage doesn't deal with homosexuality is because the guests were angels and not men is just silly.  There  are much more solid reasons for pointing out the irrelevance of the Sodom passages for dealing with homosexuality per se.
In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu>, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:  > Here's a question that some friends and I were debating last night. >  > Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that >    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian? >  > My contention is that if you answer this question with "No. I would > not then remain a Christian" then you really are not one now.   > Following Jesus Christ has everything to do with sharing in > his work and spreading the news that the Kingdom of Heaven is already > among us.  Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the > One Who made us all.  So does that mean that anyone who is a Christian to avoid Hell isn't really a Christian at all? It sounds like it to me.  Mit Liebe in Christus,  Martyn R. Mellodew. (u0mrm@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk)   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Martyn R. Mellodew,                |     E-mail: u0mrm@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk Department of Applied Mathematics  |     ARPA/Internet: u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk   and Theoretical Physics,         |     JANET:         u0mrm@uk.ac.liv.csc The University of Liverpool,       | P.O. Box 147,                      |  Liverpool,                         | England,                           |  L69 9BX.                           |     `Dubito ergo Deus est.'
In article <Apr.20.03.02.07.1993.3791@geneva.rutgers.edu>, REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes: > [In looking through my files this weekend, I ran across some lyrics from > various rock groups that have content.  Here are two from Black Sabbath's > "Master of Reality".  I'll say this much for the music of the '60's and early > '70's, at least they asked questions of significance.  Jethro Tull is another > to asked and wrote about things that caused one to wonder. --Rex]  >   It is interesting that you posted those lyrics, because just the other day I was thinking of doing the same.  I like those lyrics, since whenever I am approached by judgemental, pharisitical, evangelical fundamentalists who throw the Bible at me because I have long hair, wear a black leather jacket, and listen to Black Sabbath, I have something to throw back.  Usually their chins drop and they come up speechless over those not very satanic lyrics.  It just goes to show that there are more important evils in the world to battle than rock lyrics...........
I am a student at UW-Eau Claire.  I am doing a paper an witches and wanted to get your point of view.  I will not use you name unless you specifically tell me to do so.  Please answer this question:  As a Christian, are you offended by witches and Wiccan?  Do you feel that tehy are pagan in the evil sense of the word?  You time and cooperation is appreciated.  Thanks, J.  -This survey is being conducted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for Engl 201, taught by Karen Welch at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.  This course is in compliance with the course certification requirements of the University Institutional Review Board for the PRotection of Human Subjects.