waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
D. Andrew Byler (db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote: : However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no : way God or even part of God or equal to God.  The Assumption of our : Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the : redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not : ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along : with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in : Heaven.  Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to : any of the previously mentioned personages.   As I said, it is a provocative thought.  From "Answer to Job":  	The logical consistency of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed 	and it leaves Protestantism with the odium of being nothing but a 	_man's religion_ which allows no metaphysical representation of woman. 	...Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the 	signs of the times which point to the equality of women.  But this 	equality requires to be metaphysically anchored in the figure of a 	"divine" woman, the bride of Christ.  Just as the person of Christ 	cannot be replaced by an organization, so the bride cannot be re- 	placed by the Church.  The feminine, like the masculine, demands an 	equally personal representation. 		The dogmatizing of the Assumption does not, however, according 	to the dogmatic view, mean that Mary has attained the status of a 	goddess, although, as mistress of heaven...and mediatrix, she is  	functionally on a par with Christ, the king and mediator. At any 	rate, her position satisfies the need of the archetype. [par. 753-4]   : Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.  Jung made it clear that he was talking about psychology, not theology.  His comments had to do with the psychological _image_ of God and its function in the human psyche, not about the actual existence or nature of God.
In article <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski) writes: > Hey... >  > I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a > MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and > he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the > gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he > was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group... >   Jeff Fenholt claims to have once been a roadie for Black Sabbath. He was never ever a musician in the band.  He was in St. Louis several months back.  The poster I saw at the Christian bookstore I frequent really turned me off.  It was addressed to all "Homosexuals, prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, and headbangers..." or something like that.  Well, if I showed up with my long hair and black leather jacket I would have felt a little pre-judged.  As a Orthodox Christian, and a "headbanger" I was slightly insulted at being lumped together with drug addicts and alcoholics.  Oh yes, I suppose since I drink a good German beer now and then that makes me an alcoholic.  NOT!
In <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes: >>     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? >  [ref to Rev 12:7-12 deleted]  Also read Ezek 28:13-19.  This is a desctiption of Lucifer (later Satan) and how beautiful He was, etc, etc  Grant
In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:  >I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues,  >however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly  >perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality. ... >Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say >fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God?  How does this apply >to homosexuals?  I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of >marriage.  Is this an accurate definition?  Is there any such thing as >same-sex marriage in the Bible?  My understanding has always been that >the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband >and his wife.  I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence >to the contrary.  If we take things this literally then we must also forbid women from speaking in church. Paul while led by the holy spirit was human and could err. I find it interesting that CHRIST never discussed the issue of homosexuality, certainly it existed back then and if it was a serious transgression CHRIST would have condemned it.  I find it disturbing that the modern church spends its energy trying to stamp out something that CHRIST didn't consider worth a single word of condemnation. CHRIST repeatedly warns us against judgement.  Don't we risk "judgement in equal measure" when we condemn people who  GOD himself did not judge when he walked on the earth?  --     |         The love of CHRIST is contagious!         --+--                                              |
In article <Mar.26.02.54.26.1993.8940@athos.rutgers.edu> swansond@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson) writes: >In article <Mar.22.02.52.49.1993.330@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes: >>[...] >>When I do programs, I spend >>about half the time talking about absitinence [...] >>I find that most people who object >>to sex education actually object to the teaching *anything* other than >>abstinencne, and that IMO is just as irresponsible as only talking >>about comdom use. > >I'm under the impression that most sex ed instructors and/or policy makers >actually object to making any more than a passing reference to abstinence, >wishing to spend time only on the "realistic" choices.   In the "sex ed" portion of the  high school "health" course I took in 1984, it was impressed that the only 100% positive way to *not* get pregnant was to *not* have sex.  Other methods of contraception were discussed, in the framework of a chart which showed both the _expected_ failure rate (theoretical, assumes no mistakes) and the _actual_ failure rate (based on research). Top of the chart was something like this:    Method                  Expected         Actual   ------                 Failure Rate    Failure Rate  Abstinence                 0%              0%    And NFP (Natural Family Planning) was on the bottom. The teacher even said, "I've had some students tell me that they can't use anything for birth control because they're Catholic. Well, if you're not married and you're a practicing Catholic, the *top* of the list is your slot, not  the *bottom*.  Even if you're not religious, the top of the list is safest."  Yes, this was a public school and after Dr Koop's "failing abstinence, use a condom" statement on the prevention of AIDS.  -jen  --
There has been some talk recently of Latin rites from the early Church used to bless same-sex unions.If anyone has any idea where copies of these rites exist (in whole or in part), please notify me by e-mail.  (I understand that similar ceremonies written in Slavonic exist as well.  Let me know where I can find these.)  It doesn't matter whether the Latin rite is in the original or a translation.  However, I would prefer to have an English version of the Slavon- ic rite, if it exists.  Thanks in advance.  Doug Hayes @ PSU
>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.
In article <Apr.23.02.55.25.1993.3117@geneva.rutgers.edu>, rjs2@po.cwru.edu (Richard J. Szanto) writes: > In a previous article, randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) says: >  > >I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged > >couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have > >publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and > >are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective > >qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight. >  > I have discussed this with my girlfriend often.  I consider myself married, > though legally I am not.  Neither of us have been with other people sexually, > although we have been with each other.  We did not have sexual relations > until we decided to marry eventually.  For financial and distance reasons, > we will not be legally married for another year and a half.  Until then, > I consider myself married for life in God's eyes.  I have faith that we > have a strong relationship, and have had for over 4 years, and will be > full of joy when we marry in a church.  First, however, we must find a > church( we will be living in a new area when we marry, and will need to > find a new church community). >  > Anyway, I feel that if two people commit to marriage before God, they are > married and are bound by that commitment. >  > --  > 						-Rick Szanto   Rick has nailed the problem down pretty well.  As I can find no Scripture (have I missed it ?) that details when you are married, I have to make some assumptions based on the PRINCIPLES of Scripture.    It seems to me that it takes 3 parties to make a marriage: husband-to-be, wife-to-be, and God.  If you promise before each other and God that you will convenant together to be married, then...you are (IMO).  So why do we have the ceremonial part ?  That seems to be there for "connectedness" in the Body of Christ.  My brothers and sisters ought to be involved so that there can be some accountability on both our parts.  That's part of the concept from Hebrews about "not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together as is the custom of some."  We need each other because Lone Ranger Christians and Lone Ranger Marriages smack of a self sufficiency that the I don't see in the NT.  Does anyone see the Paul Simon "I am a rock, I am an island..." model anywhere in Christianity. (Song lyrics show your age :-) ) ?  Further, since marriage is a legal matter/institution in the USA and many other places, and such laws do not specifically go crosswise to the clear teachings of Scripture, we ought to obey them to avoid even the appearance of "evil" (I Thess 5:22)  So this would imply at least a civil ceremony before marriage, but keep in mind we are at least doing all of this for the  conscience of others because back to the beginning...you are married when you and your intended promise each other and God to be in convenant. (IMO)  What ch'all think ?  Bobby - akgua!rjb
I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.  Luke 10:19
Hi...  I'm new to this group, and maybe this has been covered already, but does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into pantheism?  I've debated this quite a bit, and while I think a legitimate concern for the planet is a great thing, I can easily see it being perverted into something dangerous.  As evidence, may I quote THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (of all things!), April 2 (Editorial page): "We suspect that's because one party to the (environmental) dispute thinks the Earth is sanctified.  It's clear that much of the environmentalist energy is derived from what has been called the Religious Left, a SECULAR, or even PAGAN fanaticism that now WORSHIPS such GODS as nature and gender with a reverence formerly accorded real religions."  (EMPHASIS MINE).
In <Apr.13.00.08.15.1993.28388@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org writes: > gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes: >  >> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame >> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience. >[deleted]  >>  >> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we >> die.       >  > I am glad that I am not an atheist.  It seems tragic that some people  > choose a meaningless existence.  How terrible to go on living only  > because one fears death more than life.        ?Huh? Okay, so I'm not Eric Molas, but even if that _is_ how he feels about life, I disagree with it.        Life, to me, is definitely NOT meaningless; it has precisely the purpose and meaning I choose to give it. I go on living because I _like_ living; if I needed any further reason, I'd be free - completely free! - to pick any reason that suited me. That freedom can be almost intoxicating; it's probably the closest I've ever been to a 'religious' experience. I'm *very* glad I am an atheist; I wouldn't be anything else.  > I feel so sorry for Eric and  > yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as  > further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.            Not unless, in explaining your own subjective experience, you also try to convert him or proselytize. Merely explaining the effects you personally experience religion as having on you, is not "infectious". Not unless Eric is paranoid, that is. ;->  > As a Christian I am free to be a human person.  I think, love, choose,  > and create.  I will live forever with God.        Whatever floats your goat. You sound happy enough; that's fairly much all that matters, right?  > Christ is not a kind of drug.  Drugs are a replacement for Christ.          Erh... Pardon, but it strikes me that sentence sounds reversible.  > Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must  > do something to ease the pain.        "Empty spot"? "God-shaped hole"? I hear such things a lot from theists; never quite did understand what they were talking about. I have no such 'emptiness' or 'hole'. Maybe some others do, I wouldn't know; but I don't, and if I did, I'd seek help about it. Doesn't sound like a mentally healthy situation at all, walking around with a 'hole' in oneself.  > Thank you, Eric for your post.  It has helped me to appreciate how much  > God has blessed me.  I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled  > and abundant life.        Well, not having written that original post, I don't know if it was intended to be interpreted in such a way; but, having reread it carefully, I somewhat doubt it. At least, that's not how he gets across to _me_, your mileage may vary...
In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu> gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes: >Firstly, I am an atheist. . . .  (Atheist drivel deleted . . .)  			Untitled 			========  	A seed is such a miraculous thing, 	It can sit on a shelf forever. 	But how it knows what to do, when it's stuck in the ground, 	Is what makes it so clever. 	It draws nutrients from the soil through it's roots, 	And gathers its force from the sun 	It puts forth a whole lot of blossoms and fruit, 	Then recedes itself when it is done. 	Who programmed the seed to know just what to do? 	And who put the sun in the sky? 	And who put the food in the dirt for the roots? 	And who told the bees to come by? 	And who makes the water to fall from above, 	To refresh and make everything pure? 	Perhaps all of this is a product of love, 	And perhaps it happened by chance. 				Yeah, sure.  			-Johnny Hart, cartoonist for _B.C._
In article <Apr.16.23.15.03.1993.1820@geneva.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: >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. > >Let's distinguish _real_ logistical problems (like being stranded on a >desert island) from _excuses_ (such as waiting for so-and-so's brother >to come back from being in the army so he can be in the ceremony)...  I disagree.  People marry each other.  When they commit fully to each other as life partners, they are married.  The ceremony may assist in emphasizing the depth of such a commitment, but is of itself nothing. God knows our hearts.  He knows when two have committed themselves to be one, he knows the fears and delusions we have that keep us from fully giving ourselves to another.  The way I see it, you'd have to be living together in a marriage for somewhere between 10 and 100 years before anyone knew if a marriage really existed, but God knows.  I don't think God keeps a scorebook.
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:  [Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do things that way."]
On 23-Apr-93 in Serbian genocide Work of God? user James Sledd@ssdc.sas.upe writes: >Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving >to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are >muslims?  Bingo - that and there's no oil there.  On 23-Apr-93 in Serbian genocide Work of God? user James Sledd@ssdc.sas.upe writes: >Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...  If this is the "work of god" then I'm doubly glad that I don't worship him.    David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland! ====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D===== Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"
In article <May.11.02.39.02.1993.28325@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes: >>This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since >>both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot >>enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they >>cannot enter into Heaven. > >Are you saying that baptism has nothing to do with asking Jesus to come into >your heart and accepting him as your savior, but is just a ritual that we >must go through to enable us to enter Heaven?     I don't think Joe was saying any such thing.  However, your question on "asking Jesus to come into your heart" seems to imply that infants are not allowed to have Christ in theirs.  Why must Baptism always be viewed by some people as a sort of "prodigal son" type of thing; i.e. a sudden change of heart, going from not accepting Christ to suddenly accepting Christ?  Why can't people start out with Christ from shortly after birth, and build their relationship from there?  After all, does a man suddenly meet a woman, and then marry her that same day?  From my experiences, I've learned that all relationships must be built, including one's relationship with God.     Also Joe is speaking from the standpoint that Baptism is not just a ritual, but that through it God bestows sacramental grace upon the recipient.  Certainly for those with the mental faculties to know Christ it is necessary to believe in Him.  However, the Sacrament itself bestows grace on the recipient, and makes a permanent mark of adoption into God's family on the soul.
>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged >couple become "married" in God's eyes?   I'm waiting for an RC to speak up ! 8-) Nobody has, so I will...  Those with Bibles on hand can give the exact chapter & verse... At the time Jesus told Peter that he was the "rock", He said whatever you hold true on earth is held true in heaven, and  whatever you don't hold true won't be true in heaven.  Therefore, with respect to marriage, the ceremony has to be done by an RC priest. No big parties required. Just the priest, the couple and witnesses. "Divorce" is not allowed. But anullments are granted upon approval by either the bishop or the Pope  (not sure if the Pope delegates this function).  --
[This was crossposted to a zillion groups.  I don't intend to carry an entire discussion crossposted from alt.sex, particularly one whose motivation seems to be having a fun argument.  However I thought readers might be interested to know about the discussion there.  --clh]  I intend to endeavor to make the argument that homosexuality is an immoral practice or lifestyle or whatever you call it.  I intend to show that there is a basis for a rational declaration of this statement.  I intend to also show that such a declaration can be  made without there being a religious justification for morality, in fact to show that such a standard can be made if one is an atheist.  Anyone who wants to join in on the fun in taking the other side, i.e. that they can make the claim that homosexuality is not immoral, or that, collaterally, it is a morally valid practice, is free to do so.  I think there are a lot of people who don't believe one can have a rational based morality without having a religion attached to it.  This should be fun to try and figure this out, and I want to try and expose (no pun intended) my ideas and see other people's and see where their ideas are standing.  As I'm not sure what groups would be interested in this discussion, I will be posting an announcement of it to several, and if someone thinks of appropriate groups, let me know.  If someone on here doesn't receive alt.sex, let me know and I'll make an exception to my usual policy and set up a mailing list to automatically distribute it in digest format to anyone who wants to receive it as I'll use that as the main forum for this.  By "exception to usual policy" is that I normally charge for this, but for the duration the service will be available at no charge to anyone who has an address reachable on Internet or Bitnet.  I decided to start this dialog when I realized there was a much larger audience on usenet / internet than on the smaller BBS networks.  To give the other side time to work up to a screaming anger, this will  begin on Monday, May 24, to give people who want to make the response time to identify themselves.  Anonymous postings are acceptable, since some people may not wish to identify themselves.  Also, if someone else wants to get in on my side, they are free to do so.
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:  >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.    Well, I think that most Christians believe that your conciousness will somehow continue on after your 'physical' death, which contradicts what most atheists (myself included) believe, namely that your conciousness, being contained in your brain, dies when your brain dies.  >There's no >reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad >enough.  I fear the pain that often comes with the process of dying, but since I won't be around to worry about it, I don't fear eternal death.  >  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since >the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.    This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?