waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:  >Regarding the new draft of the Universal Catechism:  >	In procuring the common good of society the need could arise >	that the aggressor be placed in the position where he cannot >	cause harm.  By virtue of this, the right and obligation of  >	public authorities to punish with proportionate penalties, >	including the death penalty, is acknowledged.  ... >	...  To the degree that means other than the death >	penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the >	peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred >	because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the >	final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.    		EXACTLY!!  Read that one sentence in there..."to the degree 	that means other than the death penalty and military operations are 	sufficient to keep the peace, then these non-violent provisions are to 	be preferred..."  	I don't believe that it is necessary for us to murder criminals to keep 	the peace; the Church in the United States feels the same way, thus the 	reason that the Catholic Church has opposed every execution in this 	country in recent memory.  >As is clearly shown by this excerpt, the Church's teaching on capital >punishment remains today as it has always been in the past - in total >accord with my sentiment that I do not disagree with the use of deadly >force in those cases for which this option is justifiable.    	So what is justifiable?  As you stated very explicitly from the new 	Catechism, the only justifiable case is when it is necessary to keep 	the peace.  Since that does not apply *at all* to this country, the 	logical conclusion (based on your own premises) is that one must be 	opposed to *any* form of capital punishment in America.
Let me tell you my story. I grew up catholic. Up until I was 14, it wasn't an issue for me. Then I met a born-again christian, a very sweet person, not proseletyzing(sp?), not  imposing. I tried to get into being as christian as I could, as I felt I  'should'.  But the more I tried, the more depressed I got. I felt guilty for some of my own personal, honest feelings. I tried so hard to reconcile this conflict. until I was 23.  Then I taught myself to think rationally. I read a lot of books, pro and con  religion in general and, specifically, catholicism. I came to a crisis point, then it finally clicked and now I am a staunch atheist.   This is a very loose explanation, but it's the gist of it.  Now, (at 26) I feel better about myself, better self-esteem, a generally  stronger person. I have well-defined goals. I have a strong and stable sense  of morals and values. I am not a neo-nazi or a corrupt politicain, etc. I  believe in human rights and 'live and let live' among other things. I am very  anti-violent and anti-hatred. (This is to debunk the myth that atheists are depraved.) Religion has no place in my system. Tough.  Bertrand Russell said that we cannot *know* god doesn't exist, we can't prove  it. So, in that sense, we can only truly be agnostic. But, for all practical purposes there is no god.
Undoubtedly people adopt atheism for many reasons, but I suspect that a biggie is that the God they've believed in is (in J.B. Phillips's words) "too small".  If a person's understanding of God is not allowed to grow and develop, it will eventually become inadequate.  The grey-haired gentleman on a throne who was a comforting image in childhood becomes a joke.  A therapist friend of mine sometimes suggests to her clients that they "fire God".  What she means by that is letting go of an inadequate understanding of God to make room for a fuller one.  But she follows up by encouraging them to "hire a new one".  My guess is that a lot of folks go through the firing process, but are not adequately supported in the subsequent re-hire.
>>>>> On 11 May 93 06:38:48 GMT, Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) said:  > In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir, > muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:  >>The ambiguity of religious beliefs, an unwillingness to take >>Pascal's Wager,   > I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager?  Either A: God exists, or B: He doesn't.  We have two choices, either 1: Believe in God, or 2: Don't believe in God.  If A is true, then 2 brings eternal damnation, whereas 1 brings eternal life.  If B is true, then 1 has minor inconvenience compared with 2.  Thus, it is rational to believe in God.  This has numerous flaws, covered in the FAQ for alt.atheism, amongst other places.  >>	Do I sound "broken" to you?  > I don't know.  You point out that your mother's treatment upset you, > and see inconsistencies in various religions.  I'm not sure if that > constitutes broken-ness or not.   It certainly consititutes  > disillusionment.  Disillusionment strikes me as an excellent reason for stopping believing in something.
i have a question for you all related to this.  jesus condemns divorce several times in the new testament, and i have a hard time with this. the catholic church (as far as i can tell) does grant annulments with the statement that the marriage never really existed in God's eyes. (please, if i am mistinterpreting, correct me.)  however, i have witnessed marriages where two people were very much in love but recognized that they were destroying themselves and each other by staying in a marriage, and that the problems were due to personal childhood issues that had never been resolved.  i ask you, is divorce justified in such a case?  they knew who they were, what they were doing, they were deeply in love, but in the end, it did not work out. i must admit that i don't see jesus forcing them to live together, or even condemning that they go and seek happiness with someone else later on.  opinions?  vera ******************************************************************************* I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what 	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim? *******************************************************************************
In <Apr.19.05.14.08.1993.29279@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:  >  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.   More correctly: when people die, they cease to exist.  >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.   The idea I've gotten is that to christians, Hell is -- like Heaven --  afterlife; i.e, you don't cease to exist, but are subjected to eternal   torture (well, that's the orthodox idea anyway; "eternal death" if you  prefer that). Atheists don't believe in any sort of afterlife.  >  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 state- >ments as metaphorical.   I think it's safe to say that Hell was never intended metaphorical. Certainly  not the equivalent of ceasing to exist. Some christian concepts are indeed  metaphors, but your idea of Hell is a 20th century interpretation. It is, of  course, nice to see that even christianity might evolve to fit the worldview   of modern age, but I fear the church will not accept it. Understandably, per-  haps, because if you accept that Hell is a metaphor, then you're one step  closer to turning God into a metaphor as well.
In article <May.9.05.38.52.1993.27378@athos.rutgers.edu> nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub) writes:  >As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign >a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism >was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in >Monophysitism.  This is a point that seems to have been overlooked by many. The ending of a  1600 year old schism seems to be in sight.  The theologians said that the differences between them were fundamentally  ones or terminology, and that the Christological faith of both groups was  the same.  Some parishes have concelebrated the Eucharist, and here in Southern Africa  we are running a joint theological training course for Coptic and Byzantine  Orthodox.   There are still several things to be sorted out, however. As far as the  Copts are concerned, there were three ecumenical councils, whily the  Byzantine Orthodox acknowledge seven.
Several recent posts have identified the English word 'Easter' with the Babylonian goddess 'Ishtar'.  'Easter' is a pagan word all right, but it has nothing to do with Ishtar. If 'Easter' and 'Ishtar' were related, their history would show it. But in Old English, Easter was 'Eostre', cognate with English 'East' and German 'Ost'.   The reconstructed Proto-Germanic form is 'Austron'. Not until after 1400 did 'Easter' have a high front vowel like 'Ishtar'. Clearly, the two words have quite separate origins.  There may be neo-pagans who worship Ishtar at Easter, but if so, they are making either a mistake of etymology, or a deliberate play on words.  -- Michael Covington  (Ph.D., linguistics)
mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:  >	Often times (most recently on this list in the last few days) I've >heard the passage from revelation:  >	"...whoever adds to the sacred words of this book...whoever removes >	 words from this book..."      >	 I feel this is ridiculous for two reasons:  [ 2 good reasons deleted.  AI]  >	If one takes the translation of "this book" in REV 18:22 (or somewhere >	around there) to mean "all of scripture", then all of us are likely >	holding something that is in violation of this command.  It's even worse than that --  "Ye shall not add unto the word which I  command you, neither shall ye diminish  from it" (Deut. 4:2). Shall we rip out every page from our  Bibles beginning from Joshua through Revelation?
In article 28827@athos.rutgers.edu, david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen) writes: |>Personally, I think that Christians shouldn't fight.  |>2) As Christians, we are not supposed to defend ourselves |>	Matt 5:38-48, Heb 10:33-34 |>3) War is a result of sin. Defense may be a necessary reaction to an |>attack, but I don't think that we as Christians should take part in |>this.
I'm interested if anyone out here can point me towards a review of the following book in any scholarly Christian journal, whether it be conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic.  _The_Lost_Years_of_Jesus_ (documentary evidence for Jesus' 17 year journey to the East), by Elizabeth Clare Prophet.  Supposedly this is a theory that was refuted in the past, and she has re-examined it.  I thought this was just another novel book, but I saw it listed as a text for a class in religious studies here.  Also, the endorsements seem to come from some credible sources, so I'm wondering if scholars have reviewed it (or anyone on the net, for that matter).
In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes: >In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes: >[referring to Mary] >>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin, >>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was >>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.  >I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin. >Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make  >a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole >life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't >God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us >sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?  >I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the >perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about which >I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters in >Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but this >concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the >rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.   If you don't agree with Joseph's accurate statement of the Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual sinlessness, then how do you interpret Luke 1:28,  	And when the angel had come to her, he said, "Hail, full of  	grace, the Lord is with thee.  Blessed art thou among women."  and Luke 1:48?   	...for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.  I suppose that these verses might be interpreted to mean that Mary was possessed of some limited quantity or quality of grace, just as some of  us are, but it seems to me that "full of grace" means just what it says:    filled to the brim, incapable of containing more.  The only other people we  know of who have an abundance of grace are those souls existing in heaven now  (another Catholic dogma, based on the communion of saints, as I explained in  an earlier post).  Full of grace to me means sinless, and anyone who has  ever sinned in his life cannot be without sin in the same sense as Mary   was sinless.    As a Catholic, I too find certain of the dogmas tough to embrace.  But that's where the Catholic faith and prayer come into play.  I pray God to strengthen my will to accept the faith given the bride of Christ, which in turn usually strengthens my community faith in His Church.  And, as you probably know, faith in Christ's Church is tantamount to faith in Christ inasmuch as the Church is Christ's Mystical Body.  A Catholic by nature must have two aspects to his faith in Christ: (1) a personal faith in  Christ as his own personal redeemer and (2) a community faith in the Church  as the body of Christ.    --  Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock  Catechist gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu
|In article <Apr.14.03.07.21.1993.5402@athos.rutgers.edu> >randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) writes: |>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged |>couple become "married" in God's eyes?   |Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony, |nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.
In article <Apr.21.03.26.18.1993.1352@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:  >We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been >wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were >following Christ.  From Captialist ... in strict obedience to the Gensis  >innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a >witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing >men destroyed by the inquistion.  The religious wars in Spain, France, England, >etc.  Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss >of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the >instructions therein, was unquestionable.  There is much to grieve.  I agree.  Where in the Gospels does Jesus advocate any of the actions you mention?    I couldn't find "witch" or "sorceress" in my concordance.  Is there something in the Epistles about witches?  (I'm still working my way through the Gospels.)  JJ
In article <Apr.13.00.08.44.1993.28424@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes: > >	Fortunately, my own personal theology, which will probably not >fall into line with a lot others, recognized God as a being both >without gender and posessing qualities of both genders, as being both >a masculine and feminine force.  That is not necessarily unorthodox.  When Christians call God 'Father',  we are using a metaphor.  The Bible in one place refers to God as being like a mother.  God is neither a father nor a mother in the literal sense; God has some of the attributes of both; the father metaphor is usually used because (for most people at most times) it is the less misleading of the two possibilities.
In article <May.9.05.41.18.1993.27552@athos.rutgers.edu> todd@nickel.laurentian.ca   writes: > The question is how do they interpret these verses. We > must now establish reasons for not believing this to be true based on the > interpretation of these scriptures given by someone who has come to grips with > them.  I see no other way of interpreting them other than homosexuyality being wrong.  Please tell me how these verses can be interpreted in any other way.  I read them and the surrounding text.
In a post of 29 April (?), considering disasters as instances of the judgements of God in history, Andy Byler spoke of   > the desire of the Jerusalem mob who crucified the Lord that  > "His blood be upon us."  Vera Noyes replied (02 May),   > I will not comment here for fear of being heavily flamed.  I invite them both (and other interested parties as well) to read my comments on this verse of Scripture. To obtain them, send the message GET CHOOSING BARABBAS to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU. Putting it briefly, I think that the significance of the demands of the Jerusalem crowd has usually been greatly misunderstood, both by Christian and by anti-Christian readers.   Yours,  James Kiefer
In <Apr.22.00.55.06.1993.2048@geneva.rutgers.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:  >In article <Apr.20.03.02.42.1993.3815@geneva.rutgers.edu>, >conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote: >> >> >> 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'll pose a question here that's got me thinking:  what distinguishes >"true" religion from cults (I'm speaking generally here, not specifially >about Christianity)?  Jerry Falwell was on Good Morning America on  >Tuesday ostensibly to answer this question.  Basically, he said that >true religion follows a message whereas a cult follows a person. >But, then, Christianity is a cult because the message of Christianity >IS the person of Jesus.  So what distinguishes, for example, the >Branch Davidian "cult" from the Presbyterian "church"?  Doctrinal >differences don't answer the question, IMHO, so don't use them as >an answer.   As far as I can see, one of the big differences between Davidians and Christians is in who they follow.  I have sometimes tried to put myself in the feet of one of Jesus's disciples.  Basically, they gave up a lot --- career, possibly family, and well, a whole bunch, to follow Jesus.  So what is the difference?  It is quite plain.  Jesus was good and David Koresh was not.  The problem is, I think, is that we try to legislate what is good and what is bad in terms of principles.  For instance, there are thousands of  laws in the U.S. governing what is legal and what is not.  Often, it is hard to bring people to justice, because it is not possible to find a legal way to do it.  If only we could trust judges to be just, then we could tell them to administer justice fairly, and justice would be followed.  But since judges don't always get it right, we have a complicated system involving precedent and bunches of other stuff which attempt to make the imperfect (the justice of man) into something perfect.  But what I hear about the justice system in the U.S. tells me that quite the opposite is true.  There is also a problem that we tend to judge the presentation more than the material being presented.  So we might consider  a ranting Christian to be bad, but an eloquent person from another religion to be good.  This goes along with the American desire to protect the Constitution at all costs, even if it allows people to do bad things.   I think that it is the message that is important.  If a man is presenting a false message, even if he is ever ever so mild mannered, then that man is performing a tremendous disservice.  I know that I am rambling here.  I guess that what I am trying to say is that we shouldn't be looking for principles that tell us why the Davidians got it wrong.  It is not wrong to follow and worship a person.  But it is important to choose the right person. It is simple.  Choose Jesus, and you got it right.  Choose anyone else, and you got it wrong.  Why?  Because Jesus is the begotten son of God, and nobody else is.  Jesus was without sin, and nobody else was.
[Eugen Bigelow writes:  >It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no >argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John >10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus  >that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the  >OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51 >taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say >Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.  You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women sinned, as Paul wrote.  All of humanity cooperativley reblled against God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is transmitted from generation to generation.  Andy Byler]
I apologize if this post isn't entirely appropriate for the newsgroup.     I would like to correspond with any Christians attending the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  I will be transfering there in August to complete my Ph.D. and I thought it would be nice to correspond with people before I moved out.
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?  >Wondering, >Eddie  	The quick answer:  Revelation 12:7-9  	"And there was war in heaven.  Michael and his angels fought against 	the dragon and his angels who fought back.  But he [the dragon] was 	not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.  The great 	dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent, called the devil and 	Satan, who leads the whole world astray.  He was hurled down to the 	earth, and his angels with him."  	The earlier part of chapter 12 deals (very symbolically) with why 	Satan rose up in battle against Michael and the good angels in the 	first place.