waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
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.
>>>>> On 5 May 93 06:51:23 GMT, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) said:  > In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu (Hardcore Alaskan) writes: >> >>I hope that anyone who remembers seeing Rev. Troy Perry's >>"performance" at the 1987 March On Washington will see for themselves >>just how inconceivable it is to mix Christianity with homosexuality.  > Whether or not Christianity and homosexuality are compatible is clearly > debatable, since it IS being debated.  In my opnion, it is genuinely > destuctive to the cause of Christianity to use this sort of ad hominem > argument to oppose one's adversaries.  It only serves to further drive > people away from Christianity because it projects and confirms the > frequently held opinion that Christians are unable to think critically > and intelligently.   I agree entirely.  Speaking as an atheist (heterosexual, for what it's worth), this is one of the least attractive parts of some varieties of Christianity.  Although I'm sure it's possible to argue theologically that we shouldn't make analogies between discrimination on the basis of sex and race and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, morally the case looks unanswerable (for those outside religion): the three forms _are_ analogous; we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sex, race or sexual orientation.  I found the moderator's FAQs on the subject instructive, and recommend everyone to read them.  There seem to be three different levels of acceptance:  1) Regard homosexual orientation as a sin (or evil, whatever) 2) Regard homosexual behaviour as a sin, but accept orientation (though presumably orientation is unfortunate) and dislike people who indulge 3) As 2, but "love the sinner" 4) Accept homosexuality altogether.  My experience is that 3 is the most common attitude (I imagine 1 and 2 are limited to a few fundamentalist sects).  I suppose I can go along with 3, except that I have this feeling that a 14--15 year old living in a community with this attitude, on discovering that they were more attracted to members of the same sex, would not feel the love of the community, but would rather feel the pressure not to exhibit their feelings.  I'm not saying that the community (in particular the parents) would not love the child, but I suspect the child would not feel loved.
Until recently I always understood the term "kingdom theology" to mean the  theology of the kingdom of God, but now I have discovered that there is a  new and more specialized meaning. I gather that it is also called "Dominion  theology", and that it has to do with a belief that Christians must create a  theocratic form of government on earth before Christ will come again.  I have not come across anyone who believes or advocates this, but I am told  that it is a very widespread belief in the USA.  Can anyone give me any more information about it?  Here are some of my questions:  1. Is it the teaching of any particular denomination? If so, which? 2. Where and when does it start? 3. Are there any particular publications that propagate it? 4. Are there any organizations that propagate it?
For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
In article <May.6.00.34.46.1993.15415@geneva.rutgers.edu>  news@cbnewsk.att.com writes: >Basically the teaching on infallibility >holds that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, the >college of bishops is likewise infallible, and the laity is as well.  Not exactly correct, but nice try.  The Catholic doctrine of infallibility refers to freedom from error in teaching of the universal Church in  matters of faith or MORALS.  It is this teaching which is taken as  doctrine.
In response to a lot of email I've gotten, I need to clarify my position.  I am not in favor of paganism.  I am not in favor of the Easter Bunny or other non-Christian aspects of Easter as presently celebrated.  (Incidentally, Easter eggs are not non-Christian; they are a way of ending the Lenten fast.)  My point was to distinguish between   (1) intentionally worshipping a pagan deity, and   (2) doing something which may once have had pagan associations, but nowadays is not understood or intended as such.  Many people who are doing (2) are being accused of (1).  It would be illogical to claim that one is "really" worshipping a pagan deity without knowing it.  Worship is a matter of intention. One cannot worship without knowing that one is doing so.
Joe Buehler writes:  >There are various explanations for her reaction to the angel's >greeting.  One is that she grasped what the angel was getting at, that >she was to be the mother of the Messiah.  And knew what this entailed, >all the suffering.  This gave her a moment's pause.
In article <May.6.00.35.17.1993.15441@geneva.rutgers.edu> loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes: >In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu wrote:  >You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals, >that are spirit-filled believers,   Gifts of the Spirit should not be seen as an endorsement of ones behavior. A lot of people have suffered because of similar beliefs.  Jesus said that people would come to Him saying "Lord, Lord," and proclaiming the miraculous works they had done in His name.  Jesus would tell them that they were workers of iniquity that do not know Him, and to depart from Him.    That is not to say that this will happen to everyone who commits a homosexual sin.  If the Holy Spirit were only given to the morally perfect, He would not be given to me, or any of us.  God can forgive any sin, if we repent. But people should be careful not to think, "God has given me a gift of the Spirit, it must be okay to be gay."  That is dangerous (see also hebrews 6 about those who have partaken of the Holy Spirit and of the powers of  the world to come.)  >The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is).  He's >not asking us to change our sexual nature,  Jesus doesn't ask us to change our own nature.  We cannot lift ourselves out of our own sin- but we must submit to His hand as He changes our nature.  Practicing homosexual acts and homosexual lusts violates the morality that God has set forth.    If you don't believe that, and think those of us who do are just ignorant, then at least consider us weak in the faith and be celebate for our sake's. Is practicing homosexuality worth the cost of a soul, whether it be the homosexual's or the one considered "ignorant?"
trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes: >norris@athena.mit.edu  writes: > [some stuff deleted] >> Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of >> questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For >> example: why does the universe exist at all?   >  >Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also >     assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why" >     to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't >     we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to >     "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?" [remainder of message deleted]  Pardon me for replying to only a portion of your message :)  The reason we can say "God just exists" and can't say "The universe just  exists" is because the universe is a natural realm and is subject to natural  laws in general and the law of cause and effect in particular.  That is, we  observe in nature that every cause has an effect, and every effect was produced  by a cause.  The existence of the natural realm, as an effect itself, cannot be  its own cause; it must therefore have a supernatural cause.  God, on the other hand, is a supernatural being, and is therefore not subject  to such natural laws as the law of cause and effect.  As a supernatural being,  God's eternal existence does not imply a previous cause the way the existence  of a physical, natural cosmos does.  Thus, those who believe in the  supernatural have a valid basis for accepting the existence of uncaused  phenomena such as the eternal God, whereas those who deny the existence of the  supernatural are faced with the dilemma of a physical universe whose very  nature shows that it is not sufficient to explain its own existence.  This is, of course, an oversimplification of a complex topic, but I just wanted  to clarify some important differences between the supernatural (God) and the  natural (the universe), since you seem to mistake them as being  interchangeable.
muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes: :  : In the NT, the clear references are all from Paul's letters.  In Rom : 1, there is a passage that presupposes that homosexuality is an evil. : Note that the passage isn't about homosexuality -- it's about : idolatry.  Homosexuality is visited on people as a punishment, or at : least result, of idolatry.  There are a number of arguments over this : passage.  It does not use the word "homosexuality", and it is referring : to people who are by nature heterosexual practicing homosexuality. : So it's not what I'd call an explicit teaching against all homosexuality.  That's like saying that murder is only wrong for those of us who aren't natural murders, and stealing is only wrong for those of us who aren't natural thieves.  Will
In a previous article, lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard) writes: >> >> did you know that Jesus talked more >> about hell than He did about heaven!   >  > Thank you for this info.  What respect I had for the man now >      has been diminished tenfold.  I promise never again to >      say how wise or loving this man was...  I have a hard time understanding this attitude.  If the gospels are the least bit accurate, then there can be little doubt that Jesus belived hell was a reality.  As a teacher, what would be the wise and loving thing to do if people in your audience were headed there?  To warn them!  It would, however,  be rather cruel and/or sadistic to believe that such a place exists  and then remain quiet about it.    The only scenario I can envision in which dimished respect would be justified is if Jesus knew there was no such place as hell, and spoke about it anyway, just to scare people. Unless you would accuse Jesus of this, I would encourage you to reconsider what a loving response  is when you perceive someone to be in danger.
The parable of the Prodigal Son is not about who is and who isn't an immoral person. It is about grace and the love of God. Most people would agree with that concerning the younger son. The elder son is simply a negative example of the some thing. He thinks that he must earn his father's love, that he has earned it, that he is entitled to it. His father tells him that he is on the wrong track. He has always been loved--for the same reason his brother has always been: he is his father's son.  We are too performance oriented to consistently get the point. We are willing to be saved by grace, but once we are Christians we want to go back to earning and deserving.  "Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying  to attain your goal by human effort?" Gal 3:3 NIV
I appreciated the follow-ups and replies to my earlier query.  One reply, which I have lost, suggested several parishes in New York that have good Masses, one  of which was Corpus Christi in downtown Manhattan.  By coincidence, last week's _America_, the national Jesuit magazine, carried an interview with Fr. Myles  Bourke, Corpus Christi's pastor emeritus.  Fr. Bourke also directed the NT  translation in the New American Bible.  He noted "...certain practices have  been introduced into the Mass in such a manner that an atmosphere of banality,  and sometimes of hilarity, has trivialized the liturgy."  I note that at my  parents' parish on Easter, helium filled balloons were distributed at the  offertory, apparently to aid in understanding the word "risen".  This was not a  kiddie mass, either, but the well-attended 11:00 Mass.  I wanted to note the generous spirit behind the replies.  This newsgroup as a whole offers generally moderate (perhaps because it's moderated) conversation on topics that often lead people to extreme behavior (including myself). Sometimes people do go over the top, but the remarkable thing is how that is the exception, I think.  Benefits of the doubt are generally granted.  It seems so...Christian?
In article <May.14.02.12.04.1993.25393@athos.rutgers.edu>, swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen) wrote: >  > Simply put, I do not see any way that a "Platonic essence" could have > any *real* existance.  "Essence" in the Platonic sense does not have > any referent as far as I can tell - it is just an imaginary concept > invented to provide an explanation for things better explained in > other ways.  You are quite confident that essences do not exist.  How do propose to define beings?  Can a thing can be *one* without definition?  Can a being have a definition and know essence?  What about properties?  Do beings have properties?  Does God have properties?  Does numbers exist in reality as abstract entities or do we invent them?  > Thus, to me, the unity of God must be primary, and the triality must be > secondary, must be modal or aspectual (relating to roles, or to modes > of interaction), since otherwise there is no meaning to saying God is one.  See my post in alt.messianic about the possibilities of tri-theism from a phiolosophical point of view.
dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes: >                                       Unfaithfully yours, >                                       Pixie >     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow >it blindly?   >     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you? >     I defy any theist to reply.        Dear Defiant (or Unfaithful or Pixie):  I will take up the challenge to reply, as I am a theist.  The foundation for faith in God is reason, without which the existence of God could not be proven.  That His existence can be proven by reason is indisputable (cf. my short treatise, "Traditional Proofs for the  Existence of God," and Summa Theologica).  Now, given that God exists, and that His existence can be proven by reason, I assert that His commands must be followed blindly, although in our fallen condition we must always have some measure of doubt about our faith.  Why?  Because God is the First Cause of all things, the First Mover of matter, the Independent Thing that requires nothing else for its existence, the Measure of all that is perfect, and the essential Being who gives order to the universe (logos).  I next assert that God is all good.  If this is so, then that which is contrary to the will of God is evil; i.e., the absence of the good.  And, since God can never contradict Himself, then by His promise of a Savior as early as the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:5, God instructs that because a human (Adam) was first responsible for man's alienation from the Source of all good, a man would be required to act to restore the friendship. Thus God became incarnate in the person of the Messiah.  Now this Messiah claimed that He is the Truth (John 14:6).  If this claim is true, then we are bound by reason to follow Him, who is truth incarnate.  You next seem to have a problem with authority.  Have you tried the United States Marine Corps yet?  I can tell you first-hand that it is an excellent instructor in authority.  If you have not yet had the privilege, I will reply that the authority which is Truth Incarnate may never be questioned, and thus must be followed blindly.  One may NOT deny the truth.  For example, when the proverbial apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, he could have denied that it happened, but he did not.  The laws of physics must be obeyed whether a human likes them or not.  They are true.   Therefore, the Authority which is Truth may not be denied.  QED   --  boundary
In a previous article, mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu) says:  > >Well the argument usually stops right there.  In the end, >aren't we all just kids, groping for the truth?  If so, do we have >the authority to declare all other beliefs besides our own as >false? >  If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong, then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means. Where does the authority for a belief come from? Nowhere, for a belief is itself authoratative. If I produce authority for a belief, where will I find authority for my belief in the legitimacy of the authority. In short,  the mind has to start somewhere. (By the way, the majority of Christians, i.e. Catholics, believe in the authority of the Church, and derive the authority of the Bible from its acceptance by the Church.)
mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:  >I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net >before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my >feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our >assumptions _about_ Mary."  In all the time I've been reading about >Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that >did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural >foundation.    >I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents >as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their >humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt.  But the almalga- >mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me >an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human >desire.  Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew >temptation, albeit without submitting to it.  >I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some- >how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability >to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or- >dinary human being.    >I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc., >since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we >lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make >his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings. >   >-- >paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ ..........   	Paul-  	You did a wonderful job of not doing anything humany possible to  offend us Catholics; hopefully I can be just as careful in my wording as you were. 	I also don't want to extend this topic into an entire major issue of debate (anymore than it already is), but just a note or two:  	1.  Please don't talk about Jesus' "parents"--the doctrinal positions 		of the church an unequivocally different regarding Mary and 		Joseph.  I (personally) have never heard of anything being 		attributed to St. Joseph other than his sainthood; that is, 		no reference *ever* to him being sinless, assumed into heaven, 		immaculately conceived, etc.--all these ideas apply only to 		Mary.  	2.  I would agree there is very little scriptural evidence for our 		doctrines about Mary.  Needless to say, that presents a  		significant problem to those who accept the bible as the only 		source of doctrine.  If, however, one turns to the sacred  		traditions of the undivided Christian Church, there is no 		problem finding plently of evidence that it was basically a 		unanimous belief among the apostles and all the early  		generation that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, 		etc. etc.  It wasn't until the reformation that these doctrines 		were called into question.  As far as I am concerned (again, my 		personaly feelings) if it's a choice between the apostles or 		Luther, I'll choose the apostles every time, whether or not 		it is recorded within the writings that the traditions of men 		have determined to be "the bible".
In <Apr.15.00.58.10.1993.28876@athos.rutgers.edu> eng10205@nusunix1.nus.sg (LING SIEW WEE) writes:  >Hello, I am about to embark on a bible study on ACTS. I have online >bible software with me. I would like to know the the background of the >authors of its various topics articles and about the author of the >People's New Testament. I need to know how realible is the articles in >the Online Bible software. Specifically (for your convenience) I want to >know about the :   >               1. Darby Translation ( I have never heard of this one)  J.N. Darby was one of the founders of the "Plymouth Brethren" and an early supporter of dispensationalism.  F.F. Bruce highly approved of his translation.  He also translated the Bible into several other languages.  >               2. Young's Literal Translation (I have also never heard >of)  This was from the same fellow who did Young's Concordance, which was a standard reference work, similar to Strong's concordance.  >               3. The realiability of the Hebrew/Greek Lexicon  I believe that these just follow standard reference works.  >               4. The authors (from which denomination etc) of the >articles in the TOPICS modules.  Some are by Larry Pierce ("Brethren"), some are by Baptists, and I think that Thompson (of chain reference fame) was Presbyterian)  >               5. The realiability of the Treasury of Scripture >Knowlege ( as I have never heard of too)   Another standard reference work that has been around for decades. A new version was just released and is available through Christian Book Distributers.  >               6. Who are the commentators, Scofield and B.W. Johnson >who wrote the Scofield Reference Bible and the People's New Testament respectively   C.I. Scofield was the creator of the Scofield Reference Bible.  For many people (but not me), this is THE STUDY BIBLE.  The notes are strongly dispensational.  >               7. The realiability of the Strong numbers.  These are probably the most accurate Strong's numbers available.
Hello, I am about to embark on a bible study on ACTS. I have online bible software with me. I would like to know the the background of the authors of its various topics articles and about the author of the People's New Testament. I need to know how realible is the articles in the Online Bible software. Specifically (for your convenience) I want to know about the :   		1. Darby Translation ( I have never heard of this one) 		2. Young's Literal Translation (I have also never heard of) 		3. The realiability of the Hebrew/Greek Lexicon 		4. The authors (from which denomination etc) of the articles in the TOPICS modules. 		5. The realiability of the Treasury of Scripture Knowlege ( as I have never heard of too)  		6. Who are the commentators, Scofield and B.W. Johnson who wrote the Scofield Reference Bible and the People's New Testament respectively  		7. The realiability of the Strong numbers.  I will be most happy to receive a reply of any of you who knows about the above. Also, please 'qualify' yourself so that I may know that I am not receiving a 'rubbish' letter. I just want to make sure.              Wilfred Ling