waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.13.02.30.57.1993.1557@geneva.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:  >Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again, it is time for >me to respond , once again, and say that this book is junk.  It is nothing >more that an anti-Catholic tract of the sort published ever since the there >were protestants.  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.   I have not seen this book, though I have had several people quote it in  support of some tendentious assertions they were making, so I have become  curious about it.  I don't want to malign this Hislop fellow, whoever he may be, as I have only  heard the arguments at second hand, but both of the arguments seemed to turn  on false etymology that SEEMED to be derived from Hislop.  I would be interested in knowing more about these things.   The first one claimed that the word "church" was derived from the Greek  "cyclos", and that it was therefore related to the worship of "Circe".  I don't know if Hislop is the source of this assertion, but it does seem to  be based on false etymology.  The second claimed an etymological relationship between "Ishtar" and  "Easter", which seemed to be even more fanciful and far-fetched than some  of the wilder notions of the British Israelites.  Regarding the latter, as far as I have been able to find out, "Easter" is  derived from the old English name for April - "Eosturmonath". The Venerable  Bede mentioned that this was associated with a goddess called "Eostre", but  apart from that reference I have not been able to find out anything more  about her. It also seems that the term "Easter" is only used by the English  and those they evangelized. The Germans, for example, also use the term  "Ostern", but Germany was evangelized by English missionaries.  So I would be interested in any evidence of "Easter" being used for Pascha  by people who do not have any kind of connection with the ancient Anglo- Saxons and their offshoots. Such evidence might support the claims of those  who appear to derive the theory from Hislop.
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.  In Christ's Love, Bryan
In article <May.11.02.39.05.1993.28328@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:  [bible verses ag./ used ag. homosexuality deleted]  >Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should  >check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation, >MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray >with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.  also check out the episcopal church -- although by no means all episcopalians are sympathetic to homosexual men and women, there certainly is a fairly large percentage (in my experience) who are.  i am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and living in a monogamous homosexual relationship.  this in no way diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very significant ministry with the gay and lesbian association of his community, as well as a very significant aids ministry.  my uncle is gay and when i found this out i had a good long think about what the bible has to say about this and what i feel God thinks about this.  obviously my conclusions may be wrong; nonetheless they are my own and they feel right to me.  i believe that the one important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_ rather than completely learned.  this means that to a certain extent -- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel about other people -- which is why reports of "curing" homosexuals always chill me and make me feel ill.  please not that, although i can't cite sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply....  please remember that whatever you believe, gays and lesbians shoul not be excluded from your love and acceptance.  christ loved us all, and we ALL sin.  and he himself never said anything against homosexuals -- rather it is paul (who also came out with such wonderful wisdom as "women shouldn't speak in church" and "women should keep their heads covered in church" -- not exact quotations as i don't have my bible handy) who says these things.  i have a tendency to take some of the things paul says with a grain of salt....  well, that's all i'll say for now.  >*************************************************       >*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O . >*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ // >*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<< >*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\ >*************************************************  vera noyes
I'm wondering if anyone knows the answer to a rather trivial question which I've been thinking about: What was the process used to divide the Bible into verses. I believe Jerome divided the New Testament, but I've never seen any discussion of *how* he did this. It seems rather arbitrary, as opposed to, for example, making each sentence a verse.
Hi Damon,  No matter what system or explanation of creation you wish to accept, you always have to start with one of two premises, creation from nothing, or creation from something.  There are no other alternatives.  And if we accept one or the other of those two premises, then again there are two alternatives, either creation was random, or was according to some plan.    If it was random, I am unable to accept that the complex nature of our world with interrelated interdependent organisms and creatures could exist as they do.  Therefore I am left with creation under the control of an intelligence capable of devising such a scheme.  I call that intelligence God.    I also prefer the "Creatio ex nihilo" rather than from chaos, as it is cleaner.    There is obviously no way to prove either or neither.  We are and we must have come from somewhere.  Choose whatever explanation you feel most comfortable with, Damon.  You are the one who has to live with your choice. Shalom,                                  Len Howard
In article <Apr.16.23.17.40.1993.1861@geneva.rutgers.edu<, mussack@austin.ibm.com writes... << < For example: why does the universe exist at all?    <Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager. <If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely <wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we .. <Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another <5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small <that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here <on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.   I find this view of Christianity to be quite disheartening and sad. The idea that life only has meaning or importance if there is a Creator does not seem like much of a basis for belief.   And the logic is also appalling: "God must exist because I want Him to."   I have heard this line of "reasoning" before and wonder how prevalent it is. Certainly in modern society many people are convinced life is hopeless (or so the pollsters and newscasts state), but I don't see where this is a good reason to become religious. If you want 'meaning' why not just join a cult, such as in Waco? The leaders will give you the security blanket you desire.
In article <Apr.21.03.24.44.1993.1288@geneva.rutgers.edu>, fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser) writes: > "Well you know that religion has caused more wars than > anything else" > It bothers me that I cannot seem to find a satisfactory > response to this. After all if our religion is all about > peace and love why have there been so many religious wars?  Of course if this question was asked in a group dealing with economics, the answer would be that the cause of war was economic. My observations over the past 30 years (and not withstanding a little history reading beside) is that while religious differences do play a part in many of the conflicts, so does (unfortunately) race, economics and any other items that identify one group of men as being different from another.  If we want to couch the cause of conflict in Christian terms, I would put it while Christ died for our sins, we are yet sinners. While some individuals assume "Christlike" natures, most of us do not even come close.  I realize that in many ways this is a trite answer, but I guess that it is my way of rationalizing man's constant (or so it seems) conflict.   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy vs. Hard .....Easy on who?  I had a rare very personal talk with my mother last year.  She said that when she and my father were raising we four children, they did not try to raise us in this world as strictly as they were raised in their Norwegian Lutheran community. They felt that we would be alienated from them and it would create problems.   In other words, my parent did the very tolerant, loving thing. They raised us without conflict, without what we saw as unreasonable demands and were always accepting, no matter what the circumstances.   What happened was that I grew up believing in situation ethics and never absolutes. I believed in a loving God, and my concept of God never involved justice or punishment, nor was there any concept that I may someday be held responsible for the things that offended Him...sins that the "world" told me were OK.   My parents are very good, honest and moral people. They raised four extremely honest children. Yet, before coming to a more complete knowledge of God (which includes the knowledge of justice and punishment)I committed what I now believe to be many, many grave sins. I lived with a partner outside of marriage, was married and divorced ( only after physical abuse and no apparent hope for change...but I shouldn't have married to person in the first place ) and more....   My parents felt they were doing the loving,kind thing by allowing us to be who we were, by not imposing their standards on us, and by accepting unquestioningly everything we did without judgement or counsel.   Today, it is absolutely appalling for me to look back on what they *did* accept without a word. It takes courages to dare to help souls because you must speak up and say what is unpopular and difficult and what people do not want to hear. You must be able to say what is hard, and say it as Christ would, with love and compassion. It involves risk....perhaps someone you love may not want to hear and will stay away from you.   This life is "but dust". As long as the comfort of this life is our highest priority, we will fail God and fail those with whom we come in contact.   I wonder how many who engage in sex outside of marriage, who support the "right" to abortion, who engage in homosexuality, or who commit any of the range of sins that are plentiful in this time have ever heard from a quiet, thoughtful, loving friend that these things are *wrong*. No one ever told me that what I was doing was wrong, and I saw multitudes around me living the same way I was and they seemed like good, decent people. (wouldn't kick dogs or beat the elderly or babies..) It is more difficult for sinners without a genuine prayer life to hear the Holy Spirit than it is to hear a loving friend. Think about this the next time the Holy Spirit tells you that a friend is in error, but you don't want to "cause trouble". Righteous prayers is great power, but don't forget that we are we are Christ's lips and hands on earth. Don't be afraid to simply voice Truth when the situation calls for it. Say a fervent prayer and ask the Holy Spirit for Love and guidance. In more ways than we may realize, we *are* our brother's keeper.
OFM Comments:  >[The only problem with this is that Jesus does use hell as a threat. >He doesn't sound like some of the more extreme fire and brimstone >preachers, and I don't think he wants people to live in abject fear. >But he talks a lot about people being found unworthy, and mentions >hell a number of times.  I agree that it might be more pleasant to >think that it doesn't exist.  I certainly don't agree that God is some >sort of sadist who tortures people forever.  But I am very much afraid >that there really is a life and death spiritual struggle going on, and >that it is possible for people to lose in a serious way.  --clh]  No disagreement at all that there is a VERY serious struggle going on. But Jesus more typically uses consequences as a threat.  That's quite different from Hell Classic (TM). :-) Jesus doesn't sound like the usual hell-fire type of preacher.  He attracts people through what he does. And the stongest example in Jesus preaching is in the parable of  Lazarus and Dives, which is a parable!  In any case, my point is that a fear-based response to Christ is not a freeing, life-affirming choice and isn't Good News in a meaningful sense.  There are plenty of good  reasons to follow Jesus that have nothing to do with fear or a literal  hell, that still pertain to overcoming in the present struggle between  God and the Disloyal Opposition.  A faith based in fear is not built on Rock, as we should found our faith, but on ice.  If the fear were removed, there would BE no foundation.    That's basically why it matters to me.  I think we have many Christians  that DON'T have a solid basis for relating to the living Incarnate God. I cannot be fully open to the working of God in and through my life if my response to God is motivated on fear.    Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)  --
Hi everyone,  I'm trying to find my way to God, but find it difficult as I can't hear God talking to me, letting me know that he exists and is with me and that he knows me, and I feel that I can't possibly get to know him until he does. Maybe he _is_ talking to me but I just don't know or understand how to listen.  Some Christians tell me that (in their opinion) the only way to find God is to take a plunge and commit your life to him, and you will discover. This idea of diving into the totally unknown is a little bit frightening, but I have a few questions.  1) How do you actually commit yourself? If I just say, "OK God, her you go, I'm committing my life to you", I wouldn't really feel that he'd listened - at least, I couldn't be sure that he had. So how does one (or how did you) commit oneself to God?  2) In committing myself in this way, what do I have to forfeit of my current life? What can I no longer do? I feel that I'm as 'good' as many Christians, and I try to uphold the idea of 'loving your neighbour' - I don't go round killing people, stealing, etc., and I try not to get jealous of other people in any way - and I would say that I keep to the standards of treating other people as well as many Christians. So what do I have to give up?  3) When committed, what do I have to do? What does it involve? What (if any) burdens am I taking on?  4) So then, what's the general difference before and after? I assume, that (like on your birthday you don't suddenly feel a year older) it won't suddenly change my life the day I commit myself. So what happens?  5) How can I be sure that it is the right thing to do? How can I find out what the 'it' in the last sentence actually _is_?!  Thanks very much for all your help in answering these questions. Perhaps e-mail would be a better way to reply, but it's up to you.
The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping "the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty reallly doesn't help much.  Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?
In article <Apr.17.01.11.19.1993.2268@geneva.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes: > >  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, including Vietnam >and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in >1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the >U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and >repression."  I have personally know quite of few of the Wycliffe Bible Translators. As an organization their fundamental purpose is to translate the scriptures into the native languages which in terms usual means learning it and  developing a written language (along with teaching the natives to read). It is not associated with the U.S. govt. at all.  Many governments want the help of the translators.  To the best of my knowledge the  Mexican government now encourages them to come.  Their idea is not cultural interference but the presentation of the Good News.  To understand more about what they do, I suggest you read some of the books (autobiographical and biographical) about some of the translators.  One that stands out in my mind as an excellent is called "Peace Child." This would give a true picture of what their mission is.  >  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even >praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that >Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as >automatically above reproach. > >                                                                  mp I agree with this statement, but we cannot also accept what others say without looking into the issues.  That would be the same as taking  Suddan's discussion about the CIA, etc. as being true.  We must look at both sides.
a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) writes:  >Helllo Netters:  >I was told the Bible says that God took the body of the Virgin Mary as >she was being carried for burial. Is this true, if so were in the Bible >does it say that.  >Regards, >A.Faris  >[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin >Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin >Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed >body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal >statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some >before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a >Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical >support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura". >That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of >Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little >Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe >that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also >that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet >another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us >the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]   	Again I find myself wanting to respond to a posting and having neither the time nor the proper materials with me (you would think I would learn my lesson by now--but I'm trying to finish writing my Thesis and don't have tons of time.  Anyway...)  	The basis for our (the catholic church's) belief in the assumption of Mary, body and soul, into heaven is that, to put it simply, the apostles  and all the early generation Christians believed it.  In fact, throughout their ministry the apostles kept in close contact with Mary, and 11 of the 12 were present when she died.  Only Thomas was missing--when he arrived several days later, he asked to be shown her body, and moved with pity, Peter and several of the other apostles brought him to her tomb.  When they arrived the seal was still unbroken.  They broke the seal, entered, and the body was missing.  There was no sign that anyone had entered, forcibly or otherwise, and everything else was laid out exactly as it had been left.  The apostles present all believed that Mary was assumed into heaven--and the apostles TAUGHT this in their   preaching (of course, this does not appear in any of the texts currently  considered part of the bible, but it does appear in other writings left behind by several of them.)  Basicaly, as an apostolic church (ie. founded by the apostles), we believe that the teachings of the apostles, whether written down in the bible or written down in other sources, is true, providing that the authenticity of those other sources can be confirmed.  At least in the case of the assumption of Mary, the authenticity is quite clear.
There is a contradiction related to the moral issue of polygamy in the Mormon writings.  In the book in the book of Mormon called the book of  Jacob, Joseph Smith wrote that it was an abomination to God for  David and Solomon to have many wives.  Later, when Joseph Smith wrote the Doctrines and Covenants (possibly when polygamy was becoming an issue in his personal life) he wrote that it was not an abomination for David to have many wives.  How do Mormons answer this contradiction?
Hi everyone,  	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools, do you still think that just believing is enough?'  Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith. But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.  Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do) as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'  Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.  In Christ, Will
04 May 93, D. Andrew Byler writes to All:   DAB> I think I need to again post the Athanasian Creed, whicc pretty well  DAB> delinieates orthodox Christian belief on the Trinity, and on the  DAB> Incarnation.   DAB> It's a pretty good statement of the beliefs eventually accpeted, and the  DAB> Creed is in use by the Catholic Church, as well as the Lutheran,  DAB> Anglican, and Orthodox churches (the last minus the filioque, which they  DAB> delete from the original form of the creed).  Do you have any evidence that it is used by the Orthodox Churches?  As far as I know it is purely Western, like the "Apostles' Creed". The Orthodox Churches use the "Symbol of Faith", commonly called "The Nicene Creed".  Steve Hayes Department of Missiology University of South Africa