slyster@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lyster) (09/25/90)
In answer to the question abotu why there are more women than men in church... I think that your average Western male is feeling a little aliened from culture as it is. There is alot of change, and at least the way that mainline denominations are going, with inclusive language, and female imagry for God, the average male is feeling a little dealt out of things. Not that I disapprove..... it is time for a change.... but perhaps the church is becoming the largest women's organization in the world at present. I kidded a Roman Cathloic female friend of mine, that it was time for them to start ordaining women as priests. Her reaction, "No, we can't! Then there'd be NO men in the church!!!"
) (10/01/90)
_______________________________________________________________________________ gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >In article <Sep.6.04.11.09.1990.26207@athos.rutgers.edu> hoyt@megatek.uucp (Hoyt Stearns) writes: >> >>If Saddam's adventure is indeed part of the Divine Plan, what does this augur >>for the western world's prospects? Surely the USA stands on no high >>moral ground. The devil is very clever. I believe Satan is stirring up strife in the middle east to take the attention away from his dirty work in Europe. The ten toes of Daniel's vision is forming now, and remember that the Antichrist will come from the revived Roman Empire. Alan ______________________________________________________________________________ I would like to know the reasons why you allowed this article to be posted in your newsgroup. It shows, to me and a number of friends, nothing less than a rationalisation of anti-European feeling by pandering to fundamentalism, and I think is quite inappropriate to a newsgroup with a world-wide distribution. Your sincerely, Paul Moloney [While I do not allow personal attack, I certainly do not attempt to protect our readers against fundamentalism or anti-European feeling. I would object to posting that were anti-European in the same sense as anti-Semitic, i.e. if someone tried to create personal antipathy towards Europeans. However the view that -- based presumably on interpretation of Rev. -- the now-forming European state will eventually be taken over by Satan as a tool does not seem to be this sort of personal attack. The purpose of moderation is to make sure that postings are relevant to the subject of the group, and to prevent personal fights, not to make sure that all postings agree with anybody's ideas of correct or even responsible views. --clh]
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (10/07/90)
On the contention that the European state is to be the source of the Anti-Christ, I disagree. As the anti-Christ is the ape of Christ he would have to be Semetic. I believe he is the Prince of Tyre found in Ezekiel. Please note: this does not justify anti-semitism, as the Anti-Christ is one, not a nation. Catholic prophesy throughout the last thousand years points to a Great Monarch who is of European origin, possibly an American. This prince shall fight, and eventually defeat the Anti-Christ. Christ himself will not return for another 1000 years (or more) as is foretold in Revelation. The early Christian fathers proved this in there writings on the Chiliasm (spelling unsure). The Lord does his work through people, hence the need for a Great Monarch. Various prophesies* and aparations of Our Lady indicate that the time of the battle is the present. However, it will involve the Anti-Christ and the Great Monarch. Neither of these has emerged yet, so Iraq cannot be the final battle. They will emerge in good time. For biblical references on the Great Monarch see the 33rd Sunday OT readings in the R.C. Cycle. *Nostradamus, Jeane Dixon, Western Astrology (the non-Karmaic kind) all support a belief that the time is within the next 10 years. When sources which are diametrically opposed start saying the same thing it is wise to take notice. There is deep disagreement between the fundamentalists and the more traditional Churches on last days interpretation. This is the seed of the Great Apostacy, for the fundamentalists will see Christ returned in the Anti-Christ, and the Anti-Christ in the Great Monarch. Our Muslim cousins will see the return of the Imam in the same light. Our Jewish cousins will see their Messiah. The Eastern religions will see a similar phenomenon. To avoid this error the reader should remember the words of the Lord, and of the angels. He shall return as He departed: to the Mount of Olives from on high. Those who do not acknowledge this will cause great trouble for the Great Monarch and for Christians who believe Christ will return from on high at the end of time. Please keep the Church and the prince in your prayers. May His Peace be with you, Michael
) (10/18/90)
coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) writes: > If we Christians could manage to show even a tiny > fraction of God's love to those around us, I guarantee the world would > overflow with Christians. There's more to atheism than just "christians aren't especially good so therefore God doesn't exist". Atheists don't believe in a God, full stop. No amount of coaxing or "freebies" can change that. > When we finally understand Christ's message, and mold our lives > according to it, I tell you, the atheists don't stand a chance -- after > all, who has the better message to deliver? If I promised you a tooth fairy, would you believe me because I had "a better message to deliver?". Same difference to an atheist. -- moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersneworderpratchett clive P a u l M o l o n e y "You know, I've met a lot of cool chicks, but spike james pmoloney@vax1.tcd.ie I've never met a girl with all her own teeth" lee brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
geoff@uunet.uu.net (Geoff Allen) (10/18/90)
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu writes: >There is deep disagreement between the fundamentalists and the more >traditional Churches on last days interpretation. This is the >seed of the Great Apostacy, for the fundamentalists will see Christ >returned in the Anti-Christ, and the Anti-Christ in the Great Monarch. I don't know a single fundamentalist (and I know some who make me look rather liberal) who would believe for an instant that any man is ``Christ returned.'' The return of Christ will be rather unmistakable. >To avoid this error the reader should >remember the words of the Lord, and of the angels. He shall return as >He departed: to the Mount of Olives from on high. Exactly what every fundamentalist I know believes. -- Geoff Allen \ Since we live by the Spirit, uunet!pmafire!geoff \ let us keep in step with the Spirit. bigtex!pmafire!geoff \ -- Gal. 5:25 (NIV)
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/22/90)
In article <Oct.6.21.37.34.1990.1009@athos.rutgers.edu> BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu writes: > >Catholic prophesy throughout >the last thousand years points to a Great Monarch who is of >European origin, possibly an American. This prince shall fight, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Throughout the last thousand years!?? America as a nation hasn't been around that long. ;-) >cannot be the final battle. They will emerge in good time. For biblical >references on the Great Monarch see the 33rd Sunday OT readings in the >R.C. Cycle. I wouldn't mind if you quoted this for those of us who are not RC and don't have access to the article of information you mention. >*Nostradamus, Jeane Dixon, Western Astrology (the non-Karmaic kind) >all support a belief that the time is within the next 10 years. When Frankly, I don't read or listen to any of these things. I have my hands full just trying to understand the prophecy contained in Scripture. Besides, I don't consider Nostradamus or Jeane Dixon prophets by Biblical standards. Astrology, Eastern or Western, is a tool of divination that I have no use for as a Christian. >There is deep disagreement between the fundamentalists and the more >traditional Churches on last days interpretation. This is the >seed of the Great Apostacy, for the fundamentalists will see Christ >returned in the Anti-Christ, and the Anti-Christ in the Great Monarch. Here I simply must take exception to your statements and gently repudiate them. No fundamentalist that I know of, no Christian that I know of, states that Christ, Jesus Christ, is returning as the Antichrist. Could you cite from published documents from fundamentalists that state this? The understanding is that the Antichrist will arise and be Satan incarnate. After a period of great tribulation, such as the world has never before seen, Jesus will return to put an end to the evil wrought by the Antichrist and to the Antichrist in what is known as Armageddon. This then ushers in the Millennium. That is the Pre-millennial view. The Post-millennial view doesn't see Jesus returning until the end of a period of time, but not precisely 1000 years. Some of the Christian reconstructionists on line might do a better job of explaining this than I can. So, I'll leave it at that. And in many respects, they are as fundamental as you can get. >Our Muslim cousins will see the return of the Imam in the same light. This is true only for the Shiites. The Sunnis do not follow Imams. Their spiritual leaders are more like scholars. Imams have a dogmatic control over their followers and the faith. >Our Jewish cousins will see their Messiah. No argument. >The Eastern religions will see a similar phenomenon. Well, not quite accurate. Some do and some don't. Buddhists do not have a messianic figure to look forward to as Buddhists do not believe in a God. Among Hindus, only some of them are looking forward to the coming of another incarnation of Vishnu. The ISKCON believes that their founder was just such an incarnation. Essentially, most Eastern religions do not have a need for a savior. Often, the creature is seen as a god. Because He lives, Gene
lieuwen@cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) (12/13/90)
I sent you this last week, and have seen equally recent things published. Did it not get to you? Dan >I believe one of the basic messages of Christianity is that >there are no rules binding on a Christian. > Then presumably, there is no absolute command to love God or our neighbor. >However as you say, we have to live somehow. In principle I think >everyone has responsibility for their own standards. However in >practice I expect to start with standards from the Christian community >(my own, since Christianity is far from uniform). I use the Bible to >judge it. But what I expect to get out of the Bible is not final >judgements so much as examples of how a Christian makes decisions. >Unless my situation is the same, I won't necessary expect to get the >same result. However it should be possible to trace my judgements >back to the same starting point in the Gospel. > If my Christian community is church X in Nazi Germany, presumably I may use this standard to decide that helping round up Jews is the patriotic thing to do and hence the good thing to do--after all the command to love my neighbor is not binding on me. >The problem with this is that I'm not going to be able to say "this is >Wrong" or "this is Right" and have a clearcut way to prove it. But I >am not convinced God intended us to have assured truth. When you look >.... But you shouldn't expect to know for certain that you are >Right. To me that's what the Tree of Knowledge represents: a >guaranteed source of knowledge about what is right and wrong, that >would eliminate the need to depend upon God. > You are in the bind that all those who reject tradition end up in (I know from experience being raised Evangelical and still going to an Evangelical church). One must have a source of moral absolutes. The question is whether to accept them from an outside source wiser than oneself or from oneself. I think the Fathers constitute just such a source. Early Christians thought of themselves as a group that had very specific rules, an assured truth, to follow. Try the Didache, an early manual of Christian doctrine. It is very explicit on what is and is not acceptable. I'm convinced that those who reject the moral commands contained within are outside of acceptable Christian belief (they may be saved, but are in a dangerous position). The Didache contains very clear pronouncements on sexual morality, on abortion, etc... Our civilization has a lot of characteristics in common with the Greco-Roman world--decadent and without the religious teachings that had formerly been the underpinings of the society. Dan [Oh come now. I believe the context of the discussion made it clear that when I said I didn't believe in rules I was thinking of specific rules such as "women shall never be allowed to speak in church". I was not rejecting basic principles such as loving God and our neighbor. The issue is the extent to which specific judgements in the Bible are to be taken as final for us, vs. as examples of how one works out Christian positions from basic Christian concepts. I do believe there are basic Christian concepts. I have several times said that I do not agree with completely "free form" ethics -- which was at one point known as "situation ethics" -- where in each situation one is expected to develop a Christian response "on the fly", as it were. --clh]
ggrieve@att.att.com (12/24/90)
Joseph, Was it Boney M who did "By the Rivers of Babylon" ? Desmond Dekker did one about "Israelites". Reggae artists have a lot to say about "Jah people". "Jah", I think, is derived from "Jehova". Greig Grieve
avrat@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ali Kodal) (01/07/91)
At evening, Do not expect to live till morning, At morning, Do not expect yo live till evening. Take from your health for your illness, from your life for your death. ************ Prayer is Light, Charity is proof of Faith, steadfastness is a glow. Everyone begins the morning to bargain with his soul as a stake and either ransoms it or ruins it ************ If anyone goes on his way in search of Knowledge God will,thereby,make easy for him The way of Paradise.
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (03/09/91)
[In a discussion of the plausibility of early accounts in Gen, Alan Murray mentioned the fact that Cain would have had to marry his sister. --clh] As the moderator pointed out, the Bible does not give birth records of every person born in the first couple of years of civilization. Therefore, it is quite possiable that Cain could have married an unrelated woman. Yet, even if he did not, it would have been perfectly alright for Cain to marry his sister. He could not have married his mother because that would have been adultery. The reason that Cain could have married his sister is that at that time, God had not yet given people the law which forbade them to marry members of their immediate family. This law was not given until some time after Abraham (if you will recall, Sarah was Abraham's half sister). Scientists have explained that during times before Abraham, the gene diversity between two individuals was greater than it is now. Also, at that time, there were not as many gene mutations, if any, as there are today. Thus, at that time, a brother and sister had a very good chance of producing a normal, happy child. Elizabeth
peter@artsci.toronto.edu (03/13/91)
I agree with Gene's remarks to Jeff about the basis of inalienable rights. Gene might also have cited from Henry De Bracton, an English judge living in the thirteenth century who had a tremendous influence on British law: The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king, for there is no rex (king) where will rules, rather than lex (law). De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae II:33 Peter Gentry.
awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) (03/14/91)
In article <Mar.9.00.56.56.1991.22986@athos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: > [In a discussion of the plausibility of early accounts in Gen, > Alan Murray mentioned the fact that Cain would have had to > marry his sister. --clh] > > As the moderator pointed out, the Bible does not give birth records of > every person born in the first couple of years of civilization. Therefore, > it is quite possiable that Cain could have married an unrelated woman. How could Cain have married an unrelated woman when the first two people on earth were Adam and Eve? Are you saying that Adam and Eve were not the first two human beings to be put on the earth? That's not how the Bible reads to me. Does it not plainly state that Adam was the first human being and that Eve was created of/for Adam? > > Yet, even if he did not, it would have been perfectly alright for Cain to > marry his sister. He could not have married his mother because that would > have been adultery. > > The reason that Cain could have married his sister is that at that time, > God had not yet given people the law which forbade them to marry members > of their immediate family. This law was not given until some time after > Abraham (if you will recall, Sarah was Abraham's half sister). I find this very strange indeed. Why is it OK for Cain to commit incest or adultery? You say it is not yet a law. Why then was Cain punished for murder? Murder was not 'outlawed' at the time either...yet Cain was punished for it (by God Himself). Are not murder and adultery 'forbidden' in the same place (i.e. The Ten Commandments)? What you describe can be called by nothing short of total, complete anarchy. What of blasphemy? Of idol worship? There were NO laws at the time, by your own argument. Yet God holds people responsible for these future laws. How do you explain this? Why does God hold Cain to one law while allowing him to break another? Is it because it supports your argument and makes the Bible more believable?
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/19/91)
In article <Mar.14.03.56.29.1991.25012@athos.rutgers.edu> awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) writes: >> [In a discussion of the plausibility of early accounts in Gen, >> Alan Murray mentioned the fact that Cain would have had to >> marry his sister. --clh] >> >> As the moderator pointed out, the Bible does not give birth records of >> every person born in the first couple of years of civilization. Therefore, >> it is quite possiable that Cain could have married an unrelated woman. > >How could Cain have married an unrelated woman when the first two people >on earth were Adam and Eve? Are you saying that Adam and Eve were not >the first two human beings to be put on the earth? That's not how the >Bible reads to me. Does it not plainly state that Adam was the first >human being and that Eve was created of/for Adam? I find it strange that the controversial cover story from Newsweek a year or more ago has not been mentioned in this thread. The story dealt with the research of a team of geneticists which claim that gene matching shows us to have all descended from a single woman. (Who some have labled "Eve".) The major thrust of their conclusion was not that Genesis is correct, but that theories of parralel development of a number of protomen which mingled to produce Homo Sapiens appear to be mistaken. (Someone please correct me if I have mis-remembered). The story was also given play by NPR. > I find this very strange indeed. Why is it OK for Cain to commit >incest or adultery? You say it is not yet a law. Why then was Cain >punished for murder? Murder was not 'outlawed' at the time either...yet >Cain was punished for it (by God Himself). Are not murder and adultery >'forbidden' in the same place (i.e. The Ten Commandments)? What you >describe can be called by nothing short of total, complete anarchy. >What of blasphemy? Of idol worship? There were NO laws at the time, by >your own argument. Yet God holds people responsible for these future >laws. How do you explain this? Well, this *did* predate the 10 commandments. Can we agree that Cain was not a Jew? If so, let's look at Romans 2:14-15 (Paul is comparing the sins of the Jews who have the Law to the sins of the Gentiles who do not have the Law) 14 The Gentiles do not have the Law; but whenever they do by instinct what the Law commands, they are their own law, even though they do not have the Law. 15 Their consciences also show that this is true, since their thoughts sometimes accuse them and sometimes defend them. (TEV) Now let's look at Genesis 6:9 (Cain [the farmer] has sacrificed some of his harvest, Abel [the shepherd] has sacrificed a first-born lamb. The Lord regects Cain's offering, and Cain is upset.) 6 The the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why that scowl on your face? 7 If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling;* but because you have done evil, sin is crouching at your door. It wants to rule you, but you must overcome it." 8 Then Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out in the fields."** When they were out in the fields, Cain turned on his brother and killed him. 9 The Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He answered, "I don't know, Am I supposed to take care of my brother?" (TEV) * you would be smiling; or I would have accepted your offering. ** Some ancient translations Let's go out in the fields; Hebrew does not have these words. Okay, Cain and Abel predate the law, but it appears: 1: They can sin (Verse #7) 2: Cain's conscience is bothering him (Verse #9) it seems that this is consistant with Romans 2:14-15 As I've stated before, I do not believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. I also believe there are two creation stories provided in Genesis, personally I prefer the first one. I find it interesting that with the exception of the birds of the air, the creation of life seems to be in the same order as that suggested by many scientists. Genesis has God creating plants on the third day, the Fish of the Sea and the Birds of the Air on the fifth day. On the sixth day he creates land animals. After everything else has been created, God creates human beings. The Human beings are created in two sexes, and at least the way I read the verses it wasn't necessarily just a single couple. (Genesis 1:26-28) 26 The God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild,* large and small." 27 God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female, 28 blessed them, and said, "Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control, I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals. (TEV) * One ancient translation animals, domestic and wild; Hebrew domestic animals and all the earth. It has been suggested in this thread that there might not have been genetic problems from Cain mating with his sister. Personally, I feel a number of the injunctions listed in the OT are matters of good health practices. (I.E. Kosher laws among others.) Assuming that there would not have been a genetic problem, I don't see a need for a law against incest. (Remember that the 10 commandments aren't handed down for a long long time. The gene pool at that point would have been quite different.) Despite both our personal beliefs, I don't find any conflict in Cain not being allowed to murder his brother, but being allowed to have sex with his sister. Sorry, you're gonna have to work harder. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) (03/19/91)
In article <Mar.14.03.56.29.1991.25012@athos.rutgers.edu> awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) writes: >In article <Mar.9.00.56.56.1991.22986@athos.rutgers.edu>, >ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >> [In a discussion of the plausibility of early accounts in Gen, >> Alan Murray mentioned the fact that Cain would have had to >> marry his sister. --clh] >> [text deleted] >> >> The reason that Cain could have married his sister is that at that time, >> God had not yet given people the law which forbade them to marry members >> of their immediate family. This law was not given until some time after >> Abraham (if you will recall, Sarah was Abraham's half sister). Actually, the Bible does not say what laws were in affect before the law was given to the Jewish nation through Moses. Also, Sarah was not Abraham's half sister! Read the passages closely! Abram was a chicken (or smart, take your pick), Sarah was extremely beautiful, and everytime they entered a foreign land the went into this act were they pretended they were brother and sister so Abram's head would stay on his shoulders! :) Creative, but it ended up getting him in a lot of trouble, as well as a Pharoah and a king (both of whom were reprimanded by God, and one of which talked back to God, telling Him that he, the king, was innocent). > > I find this very strange indeed. Why is it OK for Cain to commit >incest or adultery? You say it is not yet a law. Why then was Cain >punished for murder? Murder was not 'outlawed' at the time either...yet >Cain was punished for it (by God Himself). Are not murder and adultery >'forbidden' in the same place (i.e. The Ten Commandments)? What you >describe can be called by nothing short of total, complete anarchy. >What of blasphemy? Of idol worship? There were NO laws at the time, by >your own argument. Yet God holds people responsible for these future >laws. How do you explain this? > > Why does God hold Cain to one law while allowing him to break another? >Is it because it supports your argument and makes the Bible more believable? Once again we see an argument from the void, i.e. what the Bible does not talk about. First things first, the law given to the Jews applied to the Jews, and the Bible does not say what law God had given to humankind before that. Secondly, I might point out that Christians are no longer under the law (see most of the writings of Paul :). Obviously, the law is not some universal guideline that all people must hold to or be damned in hell forever. Ooops, I should point out that this is the Christian view I hold, and there are many people out there who might disagree with me, including Mr. Yaakov :). Those who would disagree with me are primarily Jewish, though sadly there are a few Christians who feel we are still bound to the law. I do not want to start a discussion on this, it is not my main point. As for whether or not Cain committed some sort of sin by marrying his sister/ close relative, I have a silly little question: God made the situation, right? He told Adam and Eve to have kids, lots of 'em, and he told those kids to have lots of kids also, multiply and fill the earth, etc. Now, if God felt it was wrong for Cain to marry his own sister/close relative, wouldn't He have provided more than Adam and Eve to have kids, or made a few more people so Cain could marry someone else? Clearly, either Cain married a sister/close relative and it was ok with God or God had provided someone who was not a sister/close relative. Either way it is a moot point, since the Bible does not specify exactly who Cain married. In fact, if you look at the passage, one might feel it even implies there were already a large number of people, since Cain began to build a city! What laws or guidelines God laid down before he gave the law to Moses and the Israelites is not specifically mentioned, as far as I know. We do know God gave instructions and guidance to other people besides his chosen people, such as the three wise men from the New Testament and the king of Salem, Melchizedek, who was a priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:18). Since the act of murder was apparently wrong, and God punished Cain for it, then it can be directly inferred that God had given some sort of guideline to people to tell them what was right or wrong. Again, the Bible does not say. We could note that God has given everyone a conscience, which is suppose to tell us what is right or wrong, but again, the Bible does not address what laws God had given to these people. Note also that Cain knew that what he had done was wrong. He does not try to deny it, nor does he argue that what he did was ok. Anyway, that's my two cents. I would be interested to hear what people think. Agape, Charles K. Hurst charles@rpi.edu
cms@gatech.edu (03/19/91)
[In a discussion of the plausibility of early accounts in Gen,
Alan Murray mentioned the fact that Cain would have had to
marry his sister. --clh]
For what it's worth, I remember from my Sunday School class that Cain
obtained a wife in the same way that Adam did -- from his rib. God
caused a deep sleep to come up on Cain, removed his rib, and created
Cain's wife, who dwelt with him in the land of Nod. This is a
tradition of the Church and seems to me to be the most plausible
explanation.
--
Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
_///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ //
_///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<<
<`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\
\\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\
\\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<<
\\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgiaawmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) (03/20/91)
In article <Mar.18.23.53.15.1991.29096@athos.rutgers.edu>, emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > [In a discussion of the plausibility of early accounts in Gen, > Alan Murray mentioned the fact that Cain would have had to > marry his sister. --clh] > > For what it's worth, I remember from my Sunday School class that Cain > obtained a wife in the same way that Adam did -- from his rib. God > caused a deep sleep to come up on Cain, removed his rib, and created > Cain's wife, who dwelt with him in the land of Nod. This is a > tradition of the Church and seems to me to be the most plausible > explanation. > > -- > Sincerely, > Cindy I have been told that I have "read into" the Bible, and made a bad assumption that God did not make more people. Now, would someone please explain why the type of argument presented here is any less guilty of "reading into" the Bible? In my case, I assume that since The Bible does not mention other people that there were none. This is no more a 'bad assumption' than the one presented here wherin one must ADD text to make an assumption. --alan [Recall that Cindy is speaking from a tradition that considers church tradition as a source of revelation on the same footing as the Bible. I suspect those you are referring to were not. --clh]
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (03/27/91)
Cindy Smith, writing on "Cain's wife", said > For what it's worth, I remember from my Sunday School class that Cain > obtained a wife in the same way that Adam did -- from his rib. God > caused a deep sleep to come up on Cain, removed his rib, and created > Cain's wife, who dwelt with him in the land of Nod. This is a > tradition of the Church and seems to me to be the most plausible > explanation. For what it's worth, in Jubilees 4, 9 we find "And Cain took his sister 'Awan as a wife, and she bore for him Enoch at the end of the fourth Jubilee. ..." Surely there has never been any problem about *Cain*'s wife? Cain was, after all, a murderer, so how bothersome would it be if he had committed incest as well? The problem is *Seth*'s wife. There again, Jubilees 4, 11 says "And in the fifth week of the fifth jubilee, Seth took 'Azura his sister as a wife. And in the fourth year of that week, she bore for him Enos. He was the first to call the name of the LORD upon the earth." The book of Jubilees is not part of the Hebrew canon, nor do Catholics accept it, but it does date back to -100 at least. As for whether it was wrong for Seth to marry his sister at that time, Cindy Smith of all people should be aware of how thoroughly Augustine discussed that one. (Nothing of Augustine's that I've read indicates any awareness of the tradition that Cindy Smith relates, but Augustine wrote vastly more than I've yet managed to read.) -- Seen from an MVS perspective, UNIX and MS-DOS are hard to tell apart.
unknown@athos.rutgers.edu (03/30/91)
In article <Mar.18.10.39.32.1991.6096@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) says: > >And, if the assumption is that being gay is inherently unhappy, or >disappointing, it certainly isn't any worse than being a woman in our >society. It's roughly on a par with being a member of any oppressed >group. This sort of offhand comment about how women are members of an oppressed group makes me curious... I am a woman (I guess, I still feel like a girl, but 22 is rather old for that... =) ) and I simply don't feel oppressed. I've been discriminated against every now and again, but I haven't ever noticed the types of systematic, entrenched problems that the word "oppression" implies. Since a Christian female friend of mine was having a problem with this subject recently, I decided to get some more opinions than just mine. =) (She, BTW, felt that her church and the Bible were inherently discriminatory and therefore could not be accurate reflections of a perfect God. This left two options: either *God was not perfect, or the Bible was not actually about him. I *pointed out a third... that she was not perfect, nor were the other *members of her church, so it's possible that she was merely the *victim of inherently sinful people--like myself and herself. =) ) We must all be careful not to judge God on the standards of some of his representatives here on earth! If everyone judged God by what they saw in me, I don't thik they would be particularly impressed... *Anyway, the point of this is: Do other Christian women feel that *they are being treated in a less loving way because of their gender? *Is this happening within Christian circles, out of Christian circles, *or both? (You will notice that I said "In a a less loving way", not *"differently". That was not an accident, because it's possible to *treat someone differently, but treat them as well, IMHO) All the girls(women) that I know around my age (ie 21) who are christians do sometimes admit to feeling perhaps less 'respected', but this is an attitude from humans, rather than from God IMHO. I respect them more, to be honest, because I find they take God more seriously than the boys(men) of the same age. I am sure you can treat people differently, but without loosing love. God loves us all equally, but doesn't necessarily talk to me the same way he talks to you! * --Jenni Drew (billy@tcom.stc.co.uk) Soon to be, once again.... Drew (ahw1@vms.brighton.ac.uk) Aint Academia wonderful? *************** Generic Disclaimer *****************
sybn_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Siu-Yan Baldwin Ng) (04/02/91)
Hi,
I am interested in subscribing to the Chrsitian Growth Newsletter.
Also, could you tell me who are respnsible for the publication of this
Newsletter?
Thanks!
In Christ,
Baldwin Ng (UUCP: {rutgers, decvax,...}!rochester!ur-cc!sybn_ltd
INTERNET: sybn_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)ldh@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) (04/21/91)
Subject: Re: Shame Keywords: GEN 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were nak ed; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. GEN 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the c ool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LO RD God amongst the trees of the garden. GEN 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? GEN 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, becaus e I was naked; and I hid myself. GEN 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of th e tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I believe GEN 3:10 is relevant. I would like to see other transliations, though.
peter@artsci.toronto.edu (05/17/91)
NOTE FOR CLH: (PLEASE PASS ON IF USEFUL) >that neither word has anything to do with homosexuality. Only a >very optimistic person would claim to know for certain what the >meaning is. >--clh] When one considers the evidence fully, there is no need to be as pessimistic as this. One might look at a thorough study of arsenokoitai such as: David F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai (1 COR. 6:9, 1 TIM. 1:10), _Vigiliae Christianae_ 38 (1984) 125-153, E.J. Brill, Leiden. For the background and culture there are full length studies such as K. J. Dover, _Greek Homosexuality_ (London, 1978). The evidence available is not only from ancient texts contemporary with the Apostolic Writings but also from ancient art which depict beyond doubt what the words mean. While the commonest situation in ancient culture indicated by arsenokoitia was an adult male using a younger male, frequently a teenager from 12-18, it is clear that Paul's term indicts a broader scenario than this. The interchangeability between arsenokoitia and paidophthoria in Greek shows this. Paul's avoids the term arsenokoitia in Romans 1 and specifies males with males to indict adult male relationships. This is clear because they "have abandoned the natural use of the female" which for Paul was the normal *adult* relationship. Peter Gentry University of Toronto