waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.21.03.26.22.1993.1355@geneva.rutgers.edu>, Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (A 369) writes: |> Can anybody tell me the basic reasons for holding a belief that there |> is only Jesus? And vice versa: The foundations for the Trinity? |>  |> Bjorn  I'd love to know how "Jesus only" proponents would answer questions like:  -Who is this "Father" Jesus keeps referring to? Why does He call Himself "the Son"?  -Why does He pray to the Father, and not to himself?  -Why does He emphasize that he does his Father's will, and not his own?  If He  was doing his own will, what kind of example is that?  Should we follow it?  -When He says he has to return to the Father, who is He going to?  -When He says he does this in order that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit might  come, who might that be?  -If He claims that the coming of the Holy Spirit is such a blessing that it's  worth His leaving us and returning to the Father, what can that mean if there  is no Holy Spirit?  -Why doesn't the best known Christian prayer begin "Our Saviour, who art in  heaven," rather than "Our Father?"  Do they have answers to these questions that are even plausible?  (Further entertaining queries are left as an exercise to the reader.)  -drt  --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |David R. Tucker		KG2S		     drt@athena.mit.edu| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu> easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes: >Hello all, >     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago >that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven >because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot >find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it >originate?  i did a workshop on this for an episcopalian student gathering a couple months ago because i wanted to know the answer too.  as far as i could tell, although that story was never specifically _told_ in the bible, many references are made to it, primarily in the new testament. in the old testament there is actually an entirely different view of satan as a (excuse the pun) "devil's advocate" for yahweh.  see the book of job.  getting back to the fallen angel story, there are _no_ references to "lucifer" in the bible except for a mistranslation of "the morning star" in the king james version (isaiah 14:12), which probably referred to a babylonian monarch much in the same was as "the sun king" referred to louis xiv.    all in all, i don't know where the story _came from_; it may have been rolling around for a long time, or milton (_paradise lost_) may have invented it.  sorry for the sketchiness of the rest of this, but i am in a hurry and need to eat lunch!  feel free to email me about the other stuff i found out....  (although a lot of it is just the result of a bible concordance program called "quickverse" -- it's really lousy, by the way -- don't buy it.)   >Wondering, >Eddie >______ __   ___  ___           o  __   ___  |    Western  Kentucky    | >  /   /__) /__  /__  /     )  /  /__) /__   |       University        | > /   /  \ (___ (___ (__/__/  /  /  \ (___   |  EASTEEE@WKUVX1.BITNET  |
I will remind this list that I have a booklet on Fatima I will send to any one who wants it.  It is "Our Lady of Fatima's Peace Plan from Heaven". It is 30 pages in length and includes the Fatima story.  If you want one or more, let me know.
In article <Apr.15.00.58.36.1993.28909@athos.rutgers.edu> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes: >How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather >than silver!  > >Proverbs 16:16  Ah and how...??? Amen to that one!!!!!!  Thanks Chuck for sharing... after all, no one can serve two masters...God and money...... after all, the preciousness of God as Lord and Savior is far more valuable than being a millionaire will ever be...
In article <Apr.20.03.01.19.1993.3755@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes: > >I dreamed that the great judgment morning had dawned, >     and the trumpet had blown. >I dreamed that the sinners had gathered for judgment >     before the white throne. >Oh what weeping and wailing as the lost were told of their fate. >They cried for the rock and the mountains. >They prayed, but their prayers were too late. >The soul that had put off salvation,  >"Not tonight I'll get saved by and by. > No time now to think of ....... religion,"  >Alas, he had found time to die. >And I saw a Great White Throne.  If I believed in the God of the bible I would be very fearful of making this statement. Doesn't it say those who judge will be judged by the same measure?   >Now, some have protest by saying that the fear of hell is not good for >motivation, yet Jesus thought it was.  Paul thought it was.  Paul said,  >"Knowing therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."  A God who must motivate through fear is not a God worthy of worship. If the God Jesus spoke of did indeed exist he would not need hell to convince people to worship him.  >Today, too much of our evangelism is nothing but soft soap and some of >it is nothing but evangelical salesmanship.  We don't tell people anymore, that >there's such a thing as sin or that there's such a place as hell.    It was the myth of hell that made me finally realize that the whole thing was untrue. If it hadn't been for hell I would still be a believer today. The myth of hell made me realize that if there was a God that he was not the all knowing and all good God he claimed to be. Why should I take such a being at his word, even if there was evidence for his existance?
Hello everyone. I just wanted to let everyone know that I have just been selected as part of the Reduction In Force here at Amdahl. For all that are currently in a dialog with me, or are waiting letters from me, I have saved your letters on floppy and will continue when I get back on the net from another account in the future.  For those who are on the GEnie network, my email address there is:                       T.ROSE1  God Bless and Goodbye until then. If you want to continue dialogs with me via US MAIL, I can be contacted at:
munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes:  >I am doing a dormitory bible "discussion" with my Christian roommate and >2 of the non-Christian guys on my floor.  They are very close to >accepting Christ, so we have started to disciple them (treat them like >baby believers) and go into more indepth subjects than the parables, etc. >Our first discussion was on prayer.  Eventually, we got around to how >we should pray in Jesus' name.  Then, an excellent question came up, one >that I don't have a real answer to.  The question was, "If we need to pray >in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God >and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same >way now?"  I'll take a try at this...  From the discussions I have been in, and from how *I* have interpreted the bible, I feel that one can pray either way.  BUT remember this, before Jesus, the people talked to God (no other way) and he talked  back.  (audible and dreams, etc.)  Today we have the bible to know  Gods will, and we have his son you died for US.  He was given as our savior, and while we still do things according to Gods will, we pray THROUGH his son.  In the bible it says that if we are not known to  Jesus, we are not known to God.  (sorry I do not have the verses with me)  So, if we are to be granted eternal life, we must present ourselves to Jesus first, who will then present us to God.  Leonard    --
>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.  This is too often true.  Many people try to place this as a "higher" sin.  However...  >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?  A big part of the problem is that many of the homosexuals and people advocating acceptance of homosexuality in churches do not consider (active) homosexuality a sin.  I don't often see the attitude of "forgive me and I will try to change".  Instead I see "there's nothing wrong with my life and I can be a good Christian, so it must be you who have an illness because you don't accept me".  Christians can and will accept homosexuals, just as they will accept *any* sinner.  Sure, it may be natural to some people to be homosexual - but it is also perfectly natural for everyone to sin!  I was born with a desire to sin, but I work to prevent myself from sinning.  It's much less common now, but I *still* have urges to lash out in anger.  There also may not be a sudden disappearance of sinful desires (or ever!), so it is sad to see people leave the church when they are discouraged that they are still homosexual after several years.
The people who post to this particular newsgroup are either too cowardly, too arrogant, or too apathetic to discuss this issue since I have yet to see any discussion grace my computer screen.  While it holds PARTICULAR interest to the African-American community, everyone has something to gain from discussing it.  As any knowledgable person should know, Christianity has been used in this country to tighten the spiritual, emotional, & mental hold slavery placed on the minds, souls & hearts of African-Americans.  This was most effectively done by the display of white icons of Jesus in slave churches to encourage the godly superiority of slaveowners.  It wasn't enough that the slaveowner was your provider, but he was also your GOD, to be looked upon with unconditional love & loyalty and to be worshipped with great pride.  But how culturally & biblically accurate are these icons?  Pictures & statues of a Black Jesus have been found in European countries, as that of a Black Madonna.  But what about Biblical physical descriptions of Jesus, His hair being compared to that of wool, His feet to that of brass?  And think about the area of the world where all Biblical actions took place.  I welcome all intelligent commentary on this important topic; flamers need not reply.  Sherlette   P.S.  I expect at least THIS type of response:  "It doesn't matter what color His skin was; His actions & what He did for mankind are what counts."  This is true; I am not questioning this.  But He walked the earth for 3 decades as a HUMAN; this part of His existence intrigues me.  And as for saying that "it doesn't matter..."  to a member of a physically emancipated people who is still struggling for MENTAL emancipation, believe me:  IT MATTERS.
In article <Apr.14.03.09.10.1993.5497@athos.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:  >       That argument would be more compelling if it were not for the >Ishtar eggs and Ishtar bunnies.  Why mix pagan fertility symbols from the >worship of the pagan goddess of fertility with Biblical belief?  What >would really be lost if all of you were to just drop the word "Easter" and >replace all such occurances with "Resurrection Sunday"?  Would you not >show up for services if they were called "Resurrection Sunday Services" >rather than "Easter Services"?    There is another way to view this.  The True Celebration is Easter, the Resurrection of Our Lord.  This has been true from the foundation of the world.  Pagan practices are then either:  1. foreshadowings of the True Celebration of the Resurrection,     in which dim light was shone forth so that people would    recognize the full truth when it was manifested, OR  2. satanic counterfeits intended to deceive us so that we would not    recognize the truth when it was manifested.  I don't believe the second argument, because I believe in the power of the Resurrection, the fulfillment of the Incarnation, and our hope. Earlier or parallel ideas in other religions clearly are dim images of the truth of the Resurrection.  As Paul states, we see through a glass darkly.  So do others.  It serves no purpose arguing about who has the darker or lighter glass.  The foreshadowings are not perfect. So what? Our understnding of God is today imperfect, for we are not yet perfected.  Theosis is not a gift such that WHAM, we're perfect.  Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,  Ephesians 2:14
The problems with Catholic liturgy are likely to continue for some time.  The problem is, in a nutshell, this: the Liturgy is a symbolic action - in other words Catholics do [or should] believe that the _signs_ during the mass - Water, Blessings, Vestments, Altar, Relics, etc - are real. That is the sprinkling of water bestows real, almost tangible, holiness, the Vestments are a real indication of real sacred time. The point of a _symbol_ is that it is understood by all to be connected to an underlying REAL referent. This kind of thinking precludes analysis; holy water is not holy because of anything, it simply IS holy.  But, modern westerners find it extremely difficult, especially if well- educated, to think of the mass as a symbol. We are more likely to see it as a _sign_, ie an action that represents grace, but which could be replaced with other signs. In concrete terms, this means the mass has become a commercial for God's grace rather than the real thing. You can mess around with a commercial in a way you wouldn't dare with the real thing [ask Coca-Cola Co.!]. These attitudes have been encouraged by Liturgy workshops, etc. which instead of focusing on _how_ to do do liturgy, have focused on how to create a meaning in liturgy. You can only create signs, symbols have to come from God [or the heart, or somewhere deeper than analysis. The most dramatic example of this shift in understanding has been in the treatment of the sacred species [the consecrated host and wine]. Now, with pita bread etc, it is common to come away from the altar with hands covered in particles. If the Host is a sign of Grace, this isnt and issue; but Catholics in the past would have been distraught at this real desacration of the real symbol of Jesus' body.  Modern Catholic liturgy  is caught in this epistemological shift. We try to perfrom the old rites, but then we have some liturgomaniac priest get up and 'explain' what we are doing - so we stop doing it and start pretending to do it. This is not a soul filling experience. It doesn't help BTW that we have got stuck witha huge amount of two and three chord ersatz-folk music [again a result of mis-analysis: complicated tunes are in fact easier to remember than simple ones - this was the genius of Wesley and the 19C Anglican hymn writers]. Taize' is only slightly better.  What are we to do? Well I suggest rejecting the parish system if it doesn't work for you. Search out a Church where the liturgy is well prepared not well-explained. They exist in every city. This is not BTW a matter of particular style: the music might be old or new. It is the attitude of the church that counts. Also, note that a conservative liturgy - harking back to pre-Vatican II days, does not necessarily mean the Church will be socially conservative.  In NYC I can recommend: 	Corpus Christi - W 12st St. 	Corpus Christi - W 12st St. - very conservative liturgy,  	St. Joseph's, Greenwich Village.  - Modern, "clean", largely gay 	Oratorian Church, Brooklyn - Very beautiful  Avoid, anywhere, anytime a church with electric candles.  Happy Easter: Christos Aneste', Christos Voskrezhne, Christ is Risen
In article <Apr.9.01.09.22.1993.16580@athos.rutgers.edu> munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes: >I am doing a dormitory bible "discussion" with my Christian roommate and >in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God >and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same >way now?" >  [insert huge deletion of all following material since it had little relevance to what I've found]  OK.  The people before Jesus didn't have Jesus, right (so far, I've announced that space is a vacuum)?  The people who lived during the time Jesus lived (especially disciples) were taught this:  "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.  He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.  And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." (John 14:12-14) So, Jesus asked them to pray for things in his name.  Since that time, the request has been the same, not to ask for intercession from other beings, but from Jesus.  Remember that "there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time." (1 Timothy 2:5-6.  Also, "there have been many of those priests [talking about priests among the Hebrews], since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.  Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them." (Hebrews 7:23-25).  Hebrews is also full of areas talking about Jesus being our mediator rather than any other man.  Joe Fisher
On Friday 7 May 1993, Marty Helgesen wrote:   > Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine, ended  > with the death of St John, the last Apostle. Nothing new can be  > added.  Every so often, the Pope declares that some departed Christian is now in Heaven, and may be invoked in the public rites of the Church. It is my understanding that Roman Catholics believe that such declarations by the Pope are infallible. I see three possibilities:      1) The Church has received a Public Revelation since the death of (for example) Joan of Arc.      2) The Church was given a list before the death of St John which had Joan's name on it.      3) There is no public revelation about Joan, and Roman Catholics are free to doubt that she died in a state of grace, or even that she is a historical character.
>>Can't someone describe someone's Trinity in simple declarative >>sentences with words that have common meaning?  When I need a kick-butt God, or when I need assurance of the reality of truth, I pray to God the Father.  When I need a friend, someone to put his arm around me and cry with me, I pray to Jesus.  When I need strength or wisdom to get through a difficult situation, I pray for the Holy Spirit.  I realize that the above will probably make some people cringe, but what can I say? I think the doctrine of the trinity is an attempt to reconcile Jesus being God and being distinct from God, as described in the Bible.  I wonder if Jesus had been a Hindu how different the wording would be.
In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu>, Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes: > I am interested in finding out why people become > atheists after having believed in some god/God. > In conversing with them on other groups, I've > often sensed anger or hostility.   Though I don't > mean to imply that all atheists are angry or hostile, > it does seem to be one motivation for giving up > faith.  Thus, some atheism might result from  > broken-ness.
pwhite@empros.com (Peter White) relates a story about a person who  gives a message in tongues which consists entirely of the words pu' ka.  He was asked to refrain from doing that.   >Well, Brother Puka controlled himself for a while, but a few weeks >later, the church had invited a missionary in to speak. At the time of >the meeting where tongues and interpretation were appropriate, who  >should arise to speak but Brother Puka. And off he went as before, >all the words were Puka. The pastor was about to apologize for this >embarrassment when the missionary arose to speak saying that he >was sorry that he did not have the interpretation but that he could >give the translation. In a tribe where he had worked, they only had >one word in the language, puka. Meaning was derived from the inflection >and other voice qualities. Brother Puka had given a perfectly inflected >and reasonable message.  Nice story but it sets off my urban legend (or is it charismatic legend?) alarms.  Can the linguists on the net identify the language from the description?  Or can they even attest that such a language exists.  It seems to be odd enough (at least by the standards of European languages) that if it exists, it should be reasonably well known to linguists as an extreme case of something or other.  Or have I just overreacted to your basic shaggy dog story?  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.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:  > [ ... about tongues ... ]  > 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!  I guess this is one of the main goals for Wycliffe Bible Translators: To define rules and a grammar for writing the 'rest' of the languages of this world. I do not see that any of them will have any reason to become unemployed during the foreseeable future. (Provided they get their neccessary support!) And still they are one of the 3 largest missionary organizations of the world.  Bjorn
I used to be a marriage commissioner for the Alaska Court System (sort of a justice of the peace).  I had great difficulty with that duty.  I used to pray earnestly in the courthouse bathroom before the ceremonies, mostly asking that the couples would come to appreciate and fulfill the true holiness and divine purpose in marriage--couples who obviously didn't realize that marriage is God's institution, not the state's.  Gradually, however, I came to conclude that because I was acting in a strictly secular, public capacity, established as such by both the state and the expectations of the couples involved, I was really conducting a purely secular, legal civil event, with no greater moral or religious implications than if I had been conducting a civil trial (the couple who told me, mid-ceremony, to "please hurry it up" may have helped me to this conclusion).        I thought I had neatly rationalized a clear and sharp distinction between marriage before God, and "marriage" before the state, until I had to deal with my own divorce.  Keeping Matthew 19:6 in mind, I felt that the state had no business dissolving my marriage established before God, but of course it assumed jurisdiction nonetheless.          I would ask those of you proposing answers to this question to consider this issue's logical extension: If intercourse, or the mental intent of the parties, or the ceremony of the church, or any combination thereof, establishes marriage, then at what moment is it dissolved?
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.