HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thughes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tracy L. Hughes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Biblical Contradictions
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:51:33 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada


 Daniel J. Dick writes :

>Romans 8:28 says that all things work for good to those who love God and
>are called according to His purpose.  The person who fears God reads the
>Bible, sees an apparent contradiction only to learn later on, comparing
>scripture with scripture, that the scripture was not in error but rather that
>his or her understanding needed corrected.  

>As for the mocker, these apparent contradictions give him every opportunity
>to grab at cheap shots left and right.  Watch the mocker exhault his own
>intelligence and lift himself above all christians in his own eyes prancing
>around like the king of all intelligence only to be cast down as a supreme
>fool! 

I think this is slightly offensive.

You see, not every Christian believes the Bible is the word-for-word
revelation of God.  This does not label them as mockers nor indicate that
they are bound for hell.  These contradictions are of legitimate concern
to them and they quote them to reveal to other Christians 
the basis of their type of faith (very often to avoid persecution, as funny
as that sounds).  They are merely approaching God in a different way than
the accepted norm.  After all, even the proposition that the Bible is God's
word to us is merely a proposition of our fallible human reasoning, so
who has the right to fault their reasoning?

And as for the legitimate mockers (and there are many) ... perhaps their
mockery should be examined more closely.  It is a good learning
experience, and is often interesting, to see your own beliefs through
someone else's eyes.  And so many of these mockers are really good people
on the whole, who have been driven from Christianity BECAUSE of these
contradictions (and other things in the Bible that they cannot agree
with for, surprisingly enough, moral reasons). 
I don't think they are trying to "exhault their own
intelligence" ... they are simply trying to explain the truth as they
see it to Christians, as much as many Christians try to explain the
truth as they see it to them.  It is actually interesting to note how
many of these people who do not profess to be Christian because of the
rest of the Bible still have a profound respect for Christ and, if not
Christ as he is often presented to them through the media of the Church,
at least for his teachings.

-Tracy
From: odin@cs.uq.oz.au (Daniel Hazel)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Looking for an online bible
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:22:03 GMT
Reply-To: odin@cs.uq.oz.au

I'm interested in acquiring an online copy of the
`New Jerusalem Bible' (Standard Edition if possible).

The program is to run on a PC.

All I've been able to find are King James Versions which seem ideal
in every way except that I really need New Jerusalem text.

Any hints or references at all much appreciated.

Dan Hazel
odin@solution.cs.uq.oz.au
From: harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage?  Just do it!
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:29:16 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

In article <Dec.20.17.26.04.1992.22113@farside.rutgers.edu> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>I believe that casual dating is wrong.  The sole purpose of dating is
>to assess whether or not to get married.  If one is willing to perform
>acts which can lead to the birth of a child, I think one should be
>ready to make a lifelong commitment to marriage.  The Apostle Paul
>advised us that if we felt powerful sexual urges we should marry.
>This is not the same as playing around in a series of sexual
>relationships which have no future.

Who said that "dating" necessarily implies sexual activity?  Dating can
be an opportunity to learn more about a potential spouse, or a means to
acquire interpersonal skills that will be helpful in marriage (possibly
marriage to someone else), but it certainly does not have to involve
sex.

Has anyone ever been scared away from someone who is desparately
looking for a wife or husband?  To approach spending time with members
of the opposite sex merely as a step toward marriage can make it very
difficult to develop any kind of friendship first, which is
foundational.  I have undoubtedly scared off many a prospective wife
due to my intensity on the subject, and I now make an effort to keep
things cool and focus on the foundation.  I would *never* be able to do
that if all dating meant to me was a pre-marriage interview!  :-)

As far as not making an immediate commitment, both parties must be in
agreement.  Of all the women with whom I have taken the time to get to
know and develop friendships, exactly *none* of them have expressed an
interest in an immediate commitment, and I would probably be wary of
one who did.  The whole process of courtship can take quite some time,
and it does not always result in marriage (much to my disappointment).
If either party does not feel ready for marriage, as is often the case
in a society where most people do not marry until they are out of
college, establishing that commitment will also take some time.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                   PictureTel Corp. (so there!)
From: allenmk@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (The Not So Tall Adventurer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christmas on the 25th. Why? (was Re: Messianic Jews and Christmas)
Date: 25 Dec 92 09:20:13 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:

>In article <Dec.15.04.25.35.1992.5187@geneva.rutgers.edu> cnews@umr.edu (UMR Usenet News Post) writes:

>   At any rate, the dead of winter is one of the least likely times for
>   shepherds to be watching over flocks by night, which would more likely
>   occur in the spring or fall.

>If you are referring to the weather, seasons fluctuate to a great
>extent.  Winter in Texas, for example, differed by about 30 degrees
>between 1972 and 1983.  Spring and fall have their own peculiar
>problems, also; there wouldn't have been a census then, because of the
>crops.

I have read (and I tried to find the source, but will have to keep looking--it
was, I think, one of my Bible dictionaries, most of which are boxed up right
now) that the only time shepherds in ancient Israel would have been watching 
over their flocks by night was during lambing season, which is in the spring.  
As far as the possibilities of a census in the spring, I know nothing about 
that!  :-)

Melinda Allen
-- 
Melinda K. Allen                  The LORD is close to the brokenhearted 
allenmk@ucsu.colorado.edu       and saves those who are crushed in spirit.   
allenmk@tramp.colorado.edu			               Psalm 34:18
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:05:29 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Dec.22.03.07.31.1992.12908@geneva.rutgers.edu>, rcheek@access.digex.com (Richard Cheek) writes:
> 
> Can it be that He might have a POINT to it even if you don't see it?
> Maybe He was fullfilling prophesy; maybe He was bringing the Son He 
> would miss from His presence and into the world warranted something
> special in His opinion. The POINT isn't that He could or could not,
> the point is why does everything God does have to make sense to 20th
> century Westerners? Some of us seem to insist on observing the infinite
> wonders of the universe and counting ourselves the rulers of a mere nutshell.

If you want *this* 'modern' to agree with you, your religion, your
theology or what-have-you, then it has to make sense to *me*.  That is
the long and short of the answer to your question.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Prayer Request - urgent
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:48:09 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:

>President Fidel Ramos appealed yesterday to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
>to spare two Filipinos reported to be facing execution on Christmas
>day for preaching Christianity in the Islamic country.

>Saudi Arabia does not permit the open practive of religions other than
>Islam and proselytising is also forbidden"

A similar article appeared in the Chicago Tribune on the 25th.  On the
26th, an article ran stating that the Saudis intended to deport the
pastors, instead of hanging them.

Pressure was applied by Muslims in the US and Christian leaders from around
the world.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Prayer Request - urgent
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:24:24 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

The following appeared in todays (23rd Dec's) "Scotsman" newspaper.
I'm typing it in verbatim (all typo's mine)

"Appeal to Spare Preachers

President Fidel Ramos appealed yesterday to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
to spare two Filipinos reported to be facing execution on Christmas
day for preaching Christianity in the Islamic country.

Oswaldo Magdangal and Renato Posedio have been in prison in Saudi
Arabia for two months after allegedly trying to build a Christian
church.

Saudi Arabia does not permit the open practive of religions other than
Islam and proselytising is also forbidden"


Can I suggest that we all pray that the King will have mercy and
commute or repeal the sentences.  Maybe we should also pray for the
Christians who will be commemorating Christ's birth in secret in Saudi
and other countries, and thank God for our own freedom to worship.

In Him

Alison
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Witnessing to Jews: Isa. Trail
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:01:44 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

[I apologize in advance if this is somewhat flame like.  I find the original
article offensive to the intelligence of Jews and integrity of Christians]

In article <Dec.22.03.09.56.1992.12942@geneva.rutgers.edu> 
REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:

>I have found
>that I know far more about the what the OT says than 99% of those that I
>witness to. 

Indeed, how much Hebrew have you (or the average Christian for that matter)
studied?

>the First Covenant (never call it the old covenant & don't call Jesus "Christ,"
>rather Jeshua or Messiah). 

Yes, we must deceive lest they reject it.  Let's wrap it up in a Jewish
package so they don't know what they're buying.  

>Before the Temple was destroyed in A.D.
>70, God had provided a perfect atonement: Yeshua or Jesus.  He is the Passover

Really, now where is Jesus' history described in the OT?  As I recollect it
was written about in the NT (which Jews do not accept).  It seems to me that
the proof that Jesus is the Christ rests on the credibility of the NT writers,
which Jews also do not accept.  Face it, you cannot derive Christianity from
the OT!  You need to accept the history written in the NT, and the Jews do 
not accept that.

>* He would appear before the Temples destruction (see Daniel 9:26).

Well, I have a copy of the Bible in front of me and it states:

Dan 9:26 After the 62 "sevens", the Annointed One will be cut of and will 
         have nothing.  The people of the ruler who will come will destroy
         the city and the sanctuary, ...

Unfortunately, that word "sevens" is the Hebrew word "shavuim" which is
the Hebrew word for "weeks".  Now 62 weeks is a little over 1 year; so
this doesn't help us much.  (Oh, you want to "translate" one week to seven
years?  Go right ahead; but that is the Christian interpretation, not the
Jewish one!  Why not pick one day is a thousand years?  After all it is in
the Psalms.  Of course, that wouldn't fit with Jesus.)

>* He would not be the kind of Messiah we
>would expect (see Isaiah 53).
>
>* He  would bear our sins see    Isaiah.53).

He will also, it appears, see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10), which Jesus
seems not to have done!
=======================================================================
My purpose in writing this is not to denigrate Christianity.  I am after
all one, and most probably can be best described as being in the Evangelical
camp.  So why fight this?  Because it wrong to say that Christianity can
be found in the OT.  It is only by starting with the NT that we can go back
to the old and see new things in it.  It is only AFTER we accept the NT,
that any of these OT passages can be seen as foreshadowing Christ.
From: phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Missions
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:29:46 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha


 I would like to start a discussion on Missions that I hope will enlighten
myself and others.(to enlighten me e-mail me and give hedrick a break!)

 My church is big on overseas missions. They seem so overjoyed at going
overseas that they seem (at times) unconcerned with America. I believe
this is dangerous. My belief is that we need to educate this country on
the truth about Christ. Once we have gathered Christ's flock here,we can
pull together and change the world for Christ.
 I was told (By a church member) that I needed to attend the Missions 
conference. I replied" I believe there is more than enough suffering 
here". "But here it is their own fault" I was told. I responded with a
lengthy(and not totally humble) lecture on the fact that many people here
are crippled by being brought up in families that do not believe in God,
Hypocrytical churches to say nothing of the unfortunate souls who are
brought up by parents who are in the occult. 
 My brothers and sisters who go on missions have my full support and
respect but I think we have too much of a view of "the grass is always
greener" approach to a suffering world. But I would rather have Christs
view than my own on this subject so I welcome argument(be kind).

-- 
 MR Shannon Saltzman
 "Is doggie heaven kitty hell?" Stephanie phoenix(age 6)
 "How does teflon stick to a skillet when nothing sticks to teflon?"
 The words of Mike Warnke.
From: harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:28:10 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

In article <Dec.20.17.40.07.1992.22263@farside.rutgers.edu> fall266@cse.unl.edu writes:
>harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>
>>>Is not our faith based on the life of Jesus after his baptism?  And is
>>>it not possible that the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke ARE
>>>attempts to prove to the Jewish Christians and the Roman Christians
>>>that Jesus really is the Messiah?
>
>>My faith is based on the *resurrection* of Jesus.  It was not what he
>>did or taught while on Earth that matters most, but who he *is*.
>
>>The Virgin Birth and other events surrounding Jesus pointed to the fact
>>that he was the Messiah, God's Anointed, as prophesied in the Old
>>Testament.  They were not central to his purpose, but they were signs
>
>I have one question.  How christian will recive the 2nd comming of
>Jessus while jews are waiting for the promised massiha.  Are both same
>if not who will be the masiah of Jews...

While I am wary of speaking for all Christendom, I think that all
Christians believe that Jesus *was* the Messiah for whom the Jews were
waiting.  He was not recognized as such by most, mainly because they
were expecting someone who would rebuild the physical temple and
overthrow their Roman oppressors, rather than someone who would build a
spiritual temple (the body of believers) and overthrow our *spiritual*
oppressor, Satan.


>These question come because Jesus will come to save his people.  But I
>dont see any denger to the christian but some churches are claiming
>that Jesus(P) are come as soon as year 2000.

Or today, for that matter:

"Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you,
 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief
 in the night." (I Thes 5:1-2)

People have been using various methods to try to predict the date of
the return of Christ for centuries.  Many of the predicted dates have
already gone by, much to the disappointment of those who made the
predictions, and of their followers, who often would abandon their
worldly possessions as the predicted time arrived.  All this, despite
the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus will return without advance
warning (e.g., in the above passage).

The irony is, the precise time at which Jesus returns is not important;
that we persevere and continue living in Him *until* He returns, is.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                   PictureTel Corp. (so there!)
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: God the Father
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:48:13 GMT

On <22 Dec 1992 00:05> William Hovingh said to All :

 WH>In my view, this makes it improper to claim that it is in any 
 WH>way "unbiblical"
 WH>to reflect that ambiguity in our own language about God.  If 
 WH>Louie Crew wants
 WH>to refer to God with the feminine singular pronoun, he should 
 WH>not be accused of
 WH>being unfaithful to the Biblical text.  My own strategy for 
 WH>getting around the
 WH>problem (which more than anything else is a failure of most 
 WH>human languages to
 WH>have a neuter-gender pronoun that refers to a person) is to 
 WH>avoid using
 WH>pronouns for God at all.  It gets a little rocky when I want to 
 WH>refer to
 WH>"God God's-self" (traditionally "God Himself"), but it's worth 
 WH>it for me to
 WH>maintain my understanding of the nature of God.

Zulu (and presumably other Bantu languages) does not have this problem.

umuntu = a person
abantu = people

umuntu ungumuntu ngabantu = a person is a person because of people

Nouns are divided into several classes (genders), and nouns with the singular 
beginning with umu- or u- and the plural begining with aba- or o- are usually 
personal

Abstract nouns usually being with ubu-, which is neither singular nor plural:

ubuntu = humanity

There are nine classes (or genders), which are unrelated to sex, each of 
which has its own "pronouns".

umuntu uyahamba = the person is walking, where the u in u-ya-hamba is like a 
pronoun

ubaba uyahamba = my father is walking
umama uyahamba = my mother is walking

Zulu-speaking people who are learning English often mix up the genders and 
sexes, and will use "he" to refer to a female and "she" to refer to a male, 
because Zulu does link sex to gender.

So if we want to be non-sexist in theology, perhaps we should do theology in 
Zulu or a similar language. 

Ekuqaleni         uNkulunkulu wadala  izulu   nomhlaba
In the beginning  God         created heaven  and earth

The "wa" (past tense singular pronoun) can refer to either sex.

Then one could say something like "Reconciliation between man and man and man 
and God" without being accused of being sexist, and without turning either 
man (umuntu) or God into a depersonalized abstract essence.

On the other hand, even Zulu begins the "Lord's prayer" 

Baba   wethu, osezulwini...
Father of us, who are in heaven ...
From: harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help For Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:05:09 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

In article <Dec.22.03.27.45.1992.13125@geneva.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <Dec.20.17.32.50.1992.22196@farside.rutgers.edu> harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>
>>I don't intend to get involved debating the scholarship of another's
>>book, but I find the extensive notes and attributions (over one hundred
>>in some chapters) of Walter Martin's _Kingdom of the Cults_ to be
>>indicative of anything but "shoddy scholarship and deceptive
>>reporting." 
>
>If only it were that easy!  Unfortunately long lists of references
>guarantee neither the competence nor the integrity of an author...

...which is why I said it was *indicative*, not conclusive.  Obviously,
the references would have to be checked in order to determine whether
they are being truly represented.  However, the mere fact that a reader
can look up the references for himself and decide that the sources
*are* being misrepresented would indicate to me that, at most, the
author misunderstood the sources.  Had he consciously tried to distort
their meanings, I suspect he would have made less of an effort to
document his research so thoroughly.

My argument regards the accusation of *intentional* misrepresentation,
for which I found no basis in either book.


>It is just too easy for an author to either be fooled himself or
>deliberately give the wrong impression while citing copious
>references.  We have to dig a bit deeper if we want to know if that
>author is trustworthy.  Indeed, one trustworthy publication does not
>guarantee that other works by the same author will be of the same
>quality.

I never said I took these books as The Gospel Truth, either.  All I
said is that they offer numerous references and have been consistent
with other works I have read on the subject, including literature
published by some of the groups covered in these books.  This leads me
to believe that the accusations of deception are unfounded at best.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                   PictureTel Corp. (so there!)
From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 25 Dec 92 09:21:31 GMT
Reply-To: <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The Vatican recently ruled that a husband hemophiliac who had contracted 
the HIV virus through bad blood must not use a condom.   

Speaking of family values!   

Quean Lutibelle/Louie


-- 
  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Academic Foundations Department, Rutgers University, NWK 07102
  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
                   Preferred:  P. O. Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: God saw that it was good.
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:25:26 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln


       Genesis 1:31 says "And God saw everything that he had made, 
       and behold, it was very good".  Some questions about this: 
         1. Does it imply that God didn't know it would be good until 
            he saw it? 
         2. Can God make anything that isn't good?
         3. In this context, what does "good" mean, anyhow?