HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God does exist! (Was Re: Non-Religious Practice)
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:46:55 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

wity@iastate.edu (Wity Ganda) writes:

>In article <Sep.23.23.58.05.1992.3331@athos.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
>>
>>     I'm a non-religious person.  What I don't like about
>>     religion is that I think it tends to split people apart
>>     more than uniting them.  One group say their god is real and
>>     another say their god is the only god.  Since all you religious
>>     believer claim there is a god, why can't you prove that there is
>>     one.  Oh, I know what you all will say, the Bible says there is.
>>     I've heard that line over a million times.  Sorry, but I'm not
>>     used to believing what I don't see or experience.  


>Some people keep saying, "Prove to me that God exists!"
>To those people, we can just say, "PROVE TO ME THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST!"
>It is impossible to prove that God does not exist.

This arguement is hollow, since it leads to an obvious contradiction--
someone who followed this logic would necessarily have to believe in the
existence of every imaginable, possible object for which there is no 
evidence.  In fact it would necessarily lead the believer to believe not
only in the Judeo/christian god but in an infinite number of gods that are
only slightly different to God to those that are wholely opposite to him.
(this is a result of our now having to believe in all beings we can't 
disprove)

In fact we have to possible sets 1) set A = beings that do not interact with the
                                        physical world
                                and 2) set B = beings that do interact with
                                        the physical world
wouldn't set A be one that is totally uninteresting to us?  Even if it was 
full of elements it would make no difference to us if it were empty or
numerous (we could have no knowledge of this fact)


>These are things that I've just got a couple days ago:
>- God does not exist simply because man believe in His existence,
>  and He will never become non-existence simply because we do not 
>  believe in His existence.

But you have started with a supposition "god exists" you should say, "If god
did exist, he wouldn't exist because man believed in his existence"

It always returns to faith, it would be much better for people to just admit
they believe in god for irrational reasons.

mark
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: What is a "personal god" (Re:'my personal savior')?
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:39:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Sep.29.03.07.27.1992.5529@athos.rutgers.edu> ccliu@next.com (Chang-Chi Liu) writes:
>I am not sure which definition(s) is the right one.  The "correct" use of  
>"personal god" seems to imply definition (2a), and (2b).  How about (5a)  
>and (5b)?  The moderator made it clear that a personal god is not a  
>private god.  My another question is that where does the term "personal  
>god" come from?  

Accepting Christ as one's "personal saviour" simply means that each of us as
individuals stands condemned before God and that as an individual we have the
choice of accepting Jesus' blood atonement for our sins (offered to us as a free
gift).  If we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, died for our sins, and rose
from the dead and accept His atoning gift, we are then saved (as an individual)
and thus enter into a personal relationship with Him.  He is the God of all creation
(not a private God) who deals with us on an individual basis (thus a personal God).
He doesn't view you as one of many transgressors, but as Chang-Chi Liu, a person
in need of a savior (as we all are) and for whom He died.  The term "personal"
most likely was derived based on how God deals with individuals in the Bible.  It
need not be used in the Bible to be an accurate description.  The word "trinity"
is not found in the Bible but the concept is taught.  Likewise, the personal
dealings of God with His people.

Mark
From: ncoast!brown@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A Question to Christians
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:10:56 GMT
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA

In article <Sep.29.02.27.04.1992.2332@athos.rutgers.edu> jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
>I can't argue with very much of what you've said. Most Christians do believe
>that God is literally going to damn some subset of humanity to hell. In facta

Is this really a necessary part of Christian belief?  C.S.Lewis gave
what seems to me (as a non-Christian anyway) a more reasonable
explanation:  In the final analysis, everyone will fall into one of two
groups, those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God
says, "thy will be done."  In other words, God doesn't send anyone
anywhere, but simply cannot force people to accept his gift of salvation
(lest he make slaves not sons).  (paraphrased liberally from {The
Screwtape Letters})

The idea of God making people, knowing that they're fallible, and
nevertheless damning them seems to me the most monstrous absurdity. The
idea that imperfect people might not be able to endure God's presence,
and that based on his purpose in creation God finds no purpose in
compelling them, seems not unreasonable.

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems                      brown@Ncoast.ORG
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Name It & Claim It
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:44:15 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:

>Can someone please explain to me the concept of Name it and claim it taught
>by Copeland and Fred Price??

>All I've ever heard was it was bad.

>Can someone send/post Scriptuial references on why it is legit/not legit??

Dr Price has a new book entitled "Name It and Claim It" which I haven't
looked at, but I believe the phrase has to do with the notion that we, as
children of God, can materially enhance our lives by our speech. This may
have something to do with a notion, which some would call heretic, that
"we are gods" and have the divine power of creative speech. There is at
least one very knowledegable brother here in Southern California who has
been accusing Kenneth Copeland of heresy over this sort of doctrine.

At any rate, a seminal scripture for the power of speech in the life of
the believer would be Mark 11:23. "Verily I say unto you, Whoever shall
say unto this mountain, Be thou removed and cast into the sea, and shall
not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he speaketh shall come
to pass, it shall be his."

On the other hand, this sort of emphasis tends to promote materialism in
the life of the believer, which is the exact antithesis of the Gospel,
and is something we are warned against, e.g. 1 Tim 6:6-11.
_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Relationship of Old and New Testaments
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:25:28 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <Oct.3.02.12.21.1992.3377@geneva.rutgers.edu> robp@landru.network.com writes:
>
>The Old Testament is meaningless without the New Testament.
>

	Don't post this if it is too dumb, but *someone* needs
	to point out how exasperating this statement could be
	to those of other faiths besides Xtianity.

>
>Rob

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:13:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Friend of Entropy)
>        I find these opinions increadibly offensive, and not merely isolated
>parts of the book, but built into the basic ideas i found:  guilt and
>punishment.
>        I am interested in hearing any possible justification of the book
>that bears these expressions, or of the ideas themselves.

If you were to read the New Testament, you would find that
Christianity is all about recognising that the Old Testament
Laws, some of which you quote, are superseded by a new vision
of God's testament to mankind, which is no longer rooted in
the habits of one particular tribe, but which is universal.
The Old Testament, for example, lays down a series of dietary
laws. But Christians don't follow these laws, because
Christianity is not about picking up the Bible and following
the letter of the law. In the New Testament there is a part
where the Christians explicitly decided that the dietary rules
were no longer applicable, and the same goes for other Old
Testament laws. Christ is constantly asking the people to look
behind the laws to the spirit in which they were given rather
than to follow them blindly. In the matter of the laws on
slavery which you quote, for example, they are designed to
ameliorate slavery - you quote one which specifically says
that slavery must be temporary, ending in seven years which in
thsoe times was a vast humanitarian leap forward.

As for the matter of guilt and punishment - yes that is in
Christianity. You must ask yourself is it right to leave the
starving hungry, is it right to beat or abuse other people?
Christianity says, no, it is not right, and those that do such
things deserve punishment. You yourself describe certain things
as offensive, but how could you do so unless you had standards
of right and wrong? This implies that you yourself must have a
sense of guilt, if you did not you would not find anything
offensive. And without punishment you cannot have guilt. How
can you feel guilty about something unless if some sense you
feel you deserve punishment for it?

Matthew Huntbach
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Relationship of Old and New Testaments
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:16:32 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Oct.2.01.06.46.1992.1877@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward) writes:
>I would not exclude either.

I think you misunderstand my question.  I'm not recommending that the Christian
forget or exclude the NT (we wouldn't be Christians if we did!).  My problem
is that most Christians I know (myself included until recently) study almost
exclusively the NT even though the NT was intended to be a supplement to the 
OT.  The original post to which I responded said that we should only read the
OT in light of the the NT, which is my objection.  As Christians we need to 
understand the OT because that was the backdrop for Jesus' first coming.  If all
we know is Paulian theology and doctrine, which we will if we follow the 
advice above, we will miss the main point of the Bible--we follow a God who
desires very much to interact and have a relationship with SINNERS.  We are
told that the righteous will walk by faith (not by doctrine and theology).  How
will we do this?  By studying the OT because it is full of people who walked
by faith and who did not walk by faith.  Where are we going to learn about
the character of our Father?  In the OT.

>Which one is important?  Both are.  Dismiss either one as lacking consequence
>and things start to collapse in a major way (slightly different way for each
>one, I am choosing not to elaborate here).

I agree 100%.  But many don't.  As Christians, we must first learn the NT
(theology and all) because we need to learn what it means to be a Christian.
But after we learn the John 3:16/Ephesians 2:1-10/etc. theology of salvation,
we should learn the OT so that we can properly understand the NT and so that
we can learn how our faith should impact our lives and how we can "walk by
faith."

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: dike@rs054.intel.com (Charles Dike)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: biblical inerrancy / sign of Jonah
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:33:08 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Beaverton, OR


   > Could someone familiar with Jewish tradition please explain 
   > what is meant by the "Day of Preparation?"

As I understand, the day of preparation was any day preceding a
sabbath. this day was to prepare for that sabbath. The Jews in 
Christ's time appear to have had certain restrictions on that day 
that did not apply to the other days of the week. These restrictions
are written in the Talmud and are available to anyone who likes
to read law books for recreation.

Polycarp ate the passover with John the Beloved and continued 
this tradition in the Jerusalem church. Polycrates learned from 
him and stated, "I...according to the tradition of my relatives,
...always observed the day when the people (Jews) threw away 
the leaven. This from "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History" Chap 24.
Those people who celebrated the Last Supper on Nisan 14 were 
called Quartodecimans. At the Council of Nicea in 325 these people
were declared heretics.

As an aside, Polycrates was excommunicated sometime around 197 AD 
for his stand on this point but the decree was not enforced.
  
Another good reference for the Nisan 14 celebration is "Encyclo-
paedia Britannica". I've only seen exerpts from the 11th edition

   > From the FAQ:
   > Of course all the gospels agree that the resurrection was 
   > on Sunday morning.

I most submit that *none* of the four gospels state unambiguously 
that the resurrection was on Sunday morning.
 
John 20:1 says that Mary arrived "when it was yet dark" to find 
the tomb already empty. While there were witnesses to the stone
being rolled back, this was done, not to allow the Messiah to exit,
but to allow the mortals to see that He was already gone.
Two scriptures of note are Mark 16:1; which states that the women 
rested the Sabbath and then bought sweet spices... Luke 23:56
says the women saw the body, prepared spices, then rested the 
sabbath day. There are 7 High Holy days (as I understand) in 
Judaism, one of which is Passover. Given a Wednesday preparation
for the High Sabbath on Thursday and a Friday preparation for 
the Saturday weekly sabbath, these two scriptures can be recon-
ciled. Frederick R. Coulter in "A Harmony of the Gospels in
Modern English - The Life of Jesus Christ", York Pub. Co. 1975
addresses a Wednesday senario in some detail.

Cordially,
Charles Dike
dike@scic.intel.com
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Greek Bible
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:12:43 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
>PS. BTW, is there a Koine Greek version of the *whole* Bible? 

Not that I'm aware of.  (And I suspect it would fairly well known if such a
thing existed, in that the translation would presumable have been made in
the first couple of centuries CE and so would be comparable in value to,
say, the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

> ... If not,
>what did the early Greek Christians use to get Old Testament knowledge?

The Septuagint.  As an example most of the OT passage used in the NT appear
to come from the Septuagint.

(The Septuagint --or LXX as it is usually abbreviated-- was the main Greek
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for the Jewish --and subsequently
Christian-- community in the Hellenistic world.  There were several other
Greek translations but the LXX was the primary, quasi-official Greek
translation.  This is similar to the role that the Vulgate played wrt Latin
and the KJV in the English (protestant) community: although there were
competing translations in the respective languages, each of these
functioned as the "real" translations into those languages.)

Although I don't understand the differences in details, the Greek of LXX is
not Koine (perhaps someone more knowledgable can elaborate?)  On the other
hand, given how limited my Koine is, I was somewhat surprised by how much
of the LXX I could actually read.

>Does anyone know of a *modern* Greek translation of the Bible?
>I'm looking for *today's* Greek.

I'm sure I've seen one of these around, but I can't for the life of me
remember where.  Have you checked with, say, a nearby Greek Orthodox
church?

N
From: kmm@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Megill)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Psalm 58
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:35:13 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

My wife and I will be starting a Bible study with some friends
on various Psalms in a week or two.  In the meantime, we are 
looking at Psalm 58.

Here are 3 verses from the Psalm:

     8:	Let them [the wicked] be as a snail which melts away as
	  it goes along,
	Like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.

     9:	Before your pots can feel the fire of thorns,
	He will sweep them away with a whirlwind, the green 
	  and the burning alike.

    10:	The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
	He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

			(Psalm 58:8-10, NASB)

I included v. 8 to provide some context.

Verse 9 uses a picture of pots, thorns and fire to make a point,
but I don't even understand the picture.
	a) Whose pots?  The wicked's?  The righteous'?  God's?
	b) Why would pots be in the fire?  For pottery? Destruction?
		Cooking?
	c) He will sweep "them" away -- the thorns?  (Not
	  	the pots, right?)
Can anyone provide any insight?

Verse 10 raises the familiar question of how the Psalms can be
so bloodthirsty.  I would appreciate comments on the following 
question:

	What are the moral boundaries for us as far as rejoicing
	when judgement takes place?  At what point does joy in
	judgement become sin?  (Compare, for example, Proverbs 21:15
	and Proverbs 24:17,18)

	If you can support your opinions with Scripture, that would be
	helpful but not required.
	
Thanks in advance,

Kevin
kmm@ector.cs.purdue.edu  or	KEVIN_MEGILL@dsu1.dsu.NoDak.edu

[There's a possible textual issue in vs. 9.  NJB emends the text.  But
if you take it as is, one reasonable view is in the Interpreter's
One-Volume Commentary, that it's simply a metaphor for how quickly
God's vengeance can heat up.  Thorns were commonly used as fuel for
cooking fires.  The image is of how quickly a small pot can be heated
up when it's put over the fire.  I'll leave the more difficult issue
of vs 10 to our readers (or possibly a posting under my own name).
--clh]
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:41:04 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Sep.30.01.28.56.1992.7201@geneva.rutgers.edu>, markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
] In article <Sep.29.02.25.57.1992.2253@athos.rutgers.edu> e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
] >saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Friend of Entropy) writes:
] >    ... There follow many quotes illustrating the horrible attitude of the
] >     on slavery and on the treatment of women.
] >
] >     He missed a lot, or maybe he just got tired looking.  Here are some
] >additional horrors from the Bible on the subjects of slavery and women:...
] 
] Is there a point to this thread???  

Yes--there is.

] 1) Those that accept the word of God as truth even if parts are hard to understand
]    or seem contrary to our human way of thinking ...
]    
] 2) Those who accept only those parts of the Bible that they either understand or
]    that fit into their own beliefs.  ...
]
] 3) Those who only look for one thing and no further...
] 
] 4) Those who reject the authority of the scriptures...
] 
] It seems to me the above thread fits into #4 and that perhaps shouldn't even be
] in a newsgroup called soc.religion.christian.  Maybe soc.religion.humanism would
] be a better place for it.

Try...
5) Those who point out that if you are going to assert that the entire
work has some higher purpose or some special character, then you are
stuck with explaining the parts that offend currnet sensibilbities
(but not ancient ones) along with those parts that are considered
praiseworthy now.

There is a great deal of material in this particular work and--by
current standards--it varies a great deal.  If you concede that some
is myth and some is history and some is moralizing and *all* of it is
ancient--and that it fit the culture in which it was written, then
there is no argument.

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: References for learning Hebrew
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:25:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

I am interested in finding introductory level texts for learning to
read hebrew.   I would appreciate any suggestions.

Robert
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel with people who don't think they're sinners
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:28:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris)
>So should we continually share the Gospel with people who don't care
>about it, who don't see themselves as sinners? What else could we do?
>Thinking about it, I realize that I have not at all been praying for
>these friends of mine.

No, there is nothing worse than evangelicals who are always
pouncing on you and trying to force their view of Christ on
you. Even as a Christian, I find these people intensely
embarrassing.

It is better to be an active participant in life, so that
people think of you as you who happens to be a Christian, not
as someone who is not worth getting to know because you'll turn
every conversation into a sales patter for Christianity. Don't try
to force your religious beliefs on people, but on the other hand
don't hide them. On the subject of sin, I don't think the line
"you're a sinner and Christ will save you" is very attractive.
On the other hand, many people will agree that there is a lot
wrong with the world, and you can then lead on by suggesting
firstly what are *they* doing about it, and secondly that there
would be a lot less wrong with the world if people lived in the
way Jesus laid down. I think more genuine converts are made to
Christianity through example than through naive evangelism.

Matthew Huntbach