waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
I wrote that I thought that 2 Peter 1:20 meant, "no prophecy of Scripture (or, as one reader suggests, no written prophecy) is merely the private opinion of the writer."  Tony Zamora replies (Sat 8 May 1993) that this in turn implies that it is not subject to the private interpretation of the reader either. I am not sure that I understand this.      In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go away because I want them to be otherwise.      In another sense, every statement is subject to private interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance -- it is just an inescapable fact.
sodium.asc.slb.com@asc.slb.com (Michael A. Montgomery) writes:  >I believe that the God has preserved the Bible perfectly in that it >perfectly conveys all of the truth that He intended. This He has done  Oh yea?  Which version of the Bible is the perfectly preserved one?  And why are there so many translations that are not perfectly preserved?  Is God trying to confuse us?  >Minor changes in wording or even accidental omission of passages in some >manuscripts does not change the truth being conveyed, nor would it lead a >serious student into doctrinal error. (Note also that God provided many  But that is exactly what happend.  There are so many branches of  denominations of Christianity and deviations of doctrine portruding from varying translations of biblical texts by "serious students" that are much too numerous to begin to count.  If there is a Perfect Bible, then there would be no possible misinterpretation and there would be no need for anyone here to be debating it.  On the other hand, maybe the Bible is perfect, but no one on this planet is perfect enough to read it correctly, but then there would be no point in God giving us something we cannot use correctly.  >In short, if you attack the credibility and reliability of the Bible, you >are on weak ground. Furthermore, the only reason that I can see for wanting >to do so is to remove the Bible as the final authority, and instead put >that responsibility on men to sift the Bible to strain out the nuggets of >truth that it contains (in other words, what they want to believe), and >ignore the rest. The Bible IS Truth; it does not just contain truth.  IMHO, if you trust your salvation on the reliability of a single book, you are on weak ground.  Remember, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  This Word existed BEFORE the Bible was written.  (Note: Word <==> God).  This Word that John is trying to describe cannot be fully described in any written language, all languages being IMPERFECT.  Realization comes only from contemplation of the Word, and is outside the boundaries of language.  I use the Bible as a guide, a stepping stone, but in no way is it my final authority. God alone is the final authority.
In article <Apr.8.00.59.20.1993.28493@athos.rutgers.edu>, jadaley@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jill Anne Daley) writes: > What exactly is a definition of sin and what are some examples. How does a > person know when they are committing sin? >   Anything that does not bring me closer to God is a sin.  (If you think this is too strict, just consider how ambiguous it is.)  This implies that staying the same is a sin. A Christian should never be satisfied. It does not imply that having fun is a sin. It does not imply that sleeping is a sin. It does imply that I sin every day.  A perhaps simpler definition: Anything that is counter to the two Great Commandments:  love God, love your neighbor, is a sin. Anything I do that is not from love is a sin.  The same action can be a sin sometimes and not a sin sometimes.  I could yell at my kids as discipline, all the time loving them, considering only to teach them proper behavior, or I could yell at my kids out of anger or selfishness.  I could post an excellent article because I am interested in sharing my opinions and getting feedback and learning, or I could post an article because I want everyone to realize how wise I am.
"Darius" == Darius Lecointe <dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> writes:  Darius> vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas) writes:  Darius> Let me suggest this.  Maybe those who believe in the eternal Darius> hell theory should provide all the biblical evidence they can Darius> find for it.  Stay away from human theories, and only take Darius> into account references in the bible.  Like most topics, we've been through this one before, but here is a good start:  Matthew 25:46:  "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."  I may post more on this subject when I have more time.  In any case, it is clear that the fate of the damned is most unpleasant, and to be avoided.  David Wagner			"Sola Scriptura!" a confessional Lutheran
Interesting point.  The Bible doesn't say "hate the sin". It tells to avoid sin, resist sin, even, when necessary, denounce sin. But not hate.   --  :-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    ***** :-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  ********* :-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  * :-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><  [The following passages all talk about God or people God approves of hating sin or some other action.  Ps 119:113 also talks about hating the sinner.  I believe there are other passages that would talk about hating someone who is evil, but I didn't turn them up in this search (which was on the word "hate" in the KJV, though I've crosschecked each passage in the NRSV).  Ps 97:10, 101:3, 105:25, 119:104, 113, 128, 163, , 139:21-22 Prov 6:16, 8:13 Isa 61:8 Amos 5:15 Zec 8:17 Rev 2:6
From article <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu>, by tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard):  > Hi Eddie, many people believe the battle described in Rev 12:7-12 > describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and his fall to the > earth. > Shalom,                             Len Howard
At the end of a recent (Mon 19 Apr 1993) post, Alastair Thomson offers the following "paraphrase" of John 3:16:     "God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son,    to die in our place, so that we may have eternal life."  The "to die in our place" bothers me, since it inserts into the verse a doctrine not found in the original. Moreover, I suspect that the poster intends to affirm, not merely substitution, but forensic (or penal) substitution.  I maintain that the Scriptures in speaking of the Atonement teach a doctrine of Substitution, but not one of Forensic Substitution.  Those interested in pursuing the matter are invited to send for my essays on Genesis, either 4 thru 7 (on this question) or 1 through 7 (with lead-in).  The n'th essay can be obtained by sending to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU the message    GET GEN0n RUFF   Yours,  James Kiefer
In article <Apr.13.00.08.22.1993.28397@athos.rutgers.edu>, trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes: > norris@athena.mit.edu  writes: > > 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?"  Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager. If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we don't search for it, then we have wasted our potentially meaningful lives. Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another 5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.  What if you woke up at a party, with no memory, and everyone was discussing who the host might be? There might not be a host, you say. I say let's go find him, the party's going to be over sometime, maybe he'll let us stay.  Because we recognize our own mortality we have to find the "why".  > ... > Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, >      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic >      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values, >      thus all must be true...  This is a good point. But more of a good point for studying religion than ignoring it. Some Christians disagree with me, but it is worthwhile to study different religions and philosophies and glean the truth from them. To quote (of course out of context) "Test everything and keep what is true."
The only info I have is my area is not having a large march.  They are leaving it up to each congragation.  IMO this means organizers found it too difficult to manage or no one feels the need to be involved.  I'm not casting stones, my involvement with the Lord does not include the March this year.  Maybe He is giving a message by the lack of one??  JLS
I just thought I'd share a nice experience before my exam today. I was walking down the streets on our campus, and a beggar came up and asked me for any spare change I might have.  I had a dollar or so that I gave her, and - not wanting to give away all my money to strangers (I generally give a dollar as that will buy a little food at McDonalds or something) - I offered her some "spiritual gifts," as I called them, rather than gifts of money. I talked of how great I felt that God had made such a pretty day, and how nice it was to give to people - she then said she was getting married soon. She talked about how she and her husband had very little (they may not have even had a house, for all I know), but that they felt a very special love in the Lord, an unselfish kind of caring.  It warmed my heart to know that 2 people can have so little monetarily, and realize that spiritually they are indeed very rich.  A good lesson for all of us who say we want more, more, more; what we really need cannot be counted, or sold, or bought.
>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.
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu  writes:  >   Hello,  >   I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on > the newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.   > Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...  > 1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.  True to a point.  If you were to ask a Buddhist atheist...  > 2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death >    is unfair.  >   I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,  > eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no > reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad > enough.  Actually, yes and no, Hell is eternal death.  Actually, the way       I've had it related to me, it's more of an eternal damnation,      where sinners will feel the licking flames of Hell.  If I      supposedly can feel these flames, I would assume I'm still      alive, but suffering and away from God.  >   Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since > the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think > that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus > with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these state- > ments as metaphorical.  I believe Jehovah's Witnesses have a similar view, where the body      sleeps for ever...  I don't have a problem with being condemned to Hell either.  The      way I see it, if God wants to punish me for being honest in      my skepticism (that is, for saying he doesn't exist), He      certainly wouldn't be changing His nature.  Besides, I would      rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven      knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being      scorched for his wrongdoings...  Stephen      _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist    _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian   _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality        _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility _/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...
Steven R Hoskins (18669@bach.udel.edu) wrote: : Hi,  : I am new to this newsgroup, and also fairly new to christianity. : ... I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and : quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying : to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful : to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other : relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would : like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological : works intended for a lay person?  I'd recommend McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" books (3 I think) and  Manfred Brauch's "Hard Sayings of Paul".  He also may have done "Hard Sayings of Jesus".  My focus would be for a new Christian to struggle with his faith and be encouraged by the historical evidence, especially one who comes from a background which emphasizes knowable faith.
In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes: > >	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do >have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a >pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior >who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the >last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods >anyway?  I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it. It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows when the second coming will take place.
James Sledd (jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu) wrote: : Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...  : I've been wondering if anyone would ever ask the question,  : Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving : to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are : muslims?  : Can/Does God use those who are not following him to accomplish : tasks for him?  Esp those tasks that are punative?  : James Sledd : no cute sig....  but I'm working on it.  Are you suggesting that God supports genocide? Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?  Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of my worship or faith.
dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:  >1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena.  In this case no morality ... >2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane') ... >3) Like (2), but here we assume that though the dreeam and OOBE environs have  >a >real existence, a different moral/ethics apply there, and no (or maybe  >different) moral laws apply there.   I can think of another alternative:  4)  OOBE's are a form of contact with the demonic world, whereby one  intentionally or unintentionally surrenders control of his or her perceptions  to spiritual beings whose purpose is to deceive and entrap them.
: > 	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know : > that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet : > hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools, : > do you still think that just believing is enough?' :  : [Stuff deleted] :   : > Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do) : > as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James : > in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out' : >  : > Can anyone help me, this really bothers me. :   I have received tons of mail from people replying to this article I wrote, and I would just like to thank everyone who took the time to give me a hand.  It has indeed helped me and re-affirmed alot of theories that I held but was a little unsure about.  God bless you all  Will
In article <Apr.14.03.08.18.1993.5458@athos.rutgers.edu> bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili) writes:   > >I appreciate if anyone can point out some good books about the dead sea >scrolls of Qumran. Thanks in advance. > >Please reply by e-mail at <bassili@cs.arizona.edu>   Ok boys & girls, hang on; here we go!      Christ's Eternal Gospel               Robinson & Robinson    The Dead Sea Scrolls & the NT         WS LaSor    James the Just in Habakkuk Pesher     RH Eisenman    Maccabees ... Quamran                 RH Eisenman    Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered            Eisenman & Wise    Dead Sea Scrolls Deception            Baigent & Leigh    Jesus & Riddle of Dead Sea Scrolls    B Thiering    Jesus Scroll                          D Joyce   Happy Reading & welcome aboard     A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+  | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |  |             not your's either; and                                  |  |             only mine, when authorized!                             |  |                                                                     |  |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |  +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fred Gilham asks (May 11) whether it is true that Kurt Goedel wrote a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God.  Yes, he did. He did not publish it, but it will be published by the Oxford University Press in German and with English translation in Volume 3, due to appear this fall, of his Collected Works.  Meanwhile, you can find a summary, or perhaps the whole thing, in an article by Jordan Howard Sobel called "Goedel's ontological proof" in the book ON BEING AND SAYING, edited by Judith Jarvis Thompson (sp?), published by the MIT Press in 1987.  Professor C Anthony Anderson of the Philosophy Department of the University of Minnesota has written an article, "Some Emendations of Goedel's Ontological Proof," which appeared in the magazine FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY, v. 7 (1990): 291-303. It discusses some objections that various critics have raised against Goedel's proof, and offers a revised version of the proof that is not vulnerable to these objections.
Our Moderator writes:  > I'm inclined to read descriptions such as the lake of fire as  > indicating annihilation. However that's a minority view. ... > It's my personal view, but the only denominations I know of that hold  > it officially are the JW's and SDA's.
In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu>, dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) wrote: >  > In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>, > vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) wrote: >  > >  > > 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant > > moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His > > truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance > > of those absolutes." >  >  > 					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference > between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e. > regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an > absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?  If you would bother to check in any good dictioanry or thesaurus, I think you will find that "arrogance" has to do with an offensive exhibition of presumed or real superiority (a paraphrase from my own Webster's). Arrognace is about pride and haughtiness. A person can believe in absolute truth, even blindly (whatever that means) without being obnoxious about it. Just as a person can be a "humble," authority-questioning, defying-any-theist-to-reply athiest and be quite arrogant. Arrogance is not about what you believe, it is about how you relate to what you believe and how you present it to others. If your overwhelming experience of Christians has been that they are arrogant, I apologozing both for myself and on the behalf of those who have offfended you. But my own experience, at least in forums like Usenet where you see a good mix of people, is that arrogant Christians and athiests seems to occur in about equal numbers.  - Phil -
hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu writes:  >down these distinctions.  In him there is neither Jew nor Greek, there >is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female.  If >Moslems do not know him, we may preach to them, but we don't kill ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  As a muslim (spelled sometimes as Moslem) I must say that Muslims strong ly believe in Jesus.  Refered in islamic text as eesau(as)           Jesus ==>  J - esu  - s    ===> esu (pronounced eee-saw)  Yah we knew him well.  Ideally, this war should not even be.  And even in a time of war, our goal is peace.  We should try to refrain from viloating the peace of others as then if we do violate, we will not have peace in ourselves.  I don't like this war eaither,  It is a conflict of territory. Croats, Muslims, and Serbs lived together before in peace.  The rallying point is 'race'.  And Im sure that there is a General out there who wouldn't mind being a president.  -- Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu
My girlfriend is a smoker. She has been addicted to it for quite some time. She has been tried a couple of times, but then always get back to it. Her  background is non-Christian, but she's interested in Christianity. I'm a Christian and non-smoker.  I would like to collect any personal stories from Christians who managed to  quit. I hope that this will encourage her to keep on trying. If anybody ever  had a similar problem or knows a good book on it, pls reply by email.   I appreciate any kinds of helps. Thanks a lot.
I don't know if this is the sort of thing you guys like to discuss.  I guess it falls into the area of apologetics.  This is a question that seems to pop up now and again in conversations with non-christians.  It usually appears in the following sort of unqualified statement: "Well you know that religion has caused more wars than anything else" It bothers me that I cannot seem to find a satisfactory response to this. After all if our religion is all about peace and love why have there been so many religious wars?   Personally I am of the view that religion has often been used as an excuse to instigate wars often to disguise national ambitions but I would love to hear what anyone else has to say about this subject.   Thanks in advance   Andrew J Fraser  (If we're thinking in terms of history, the Crusades, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia(?) come immediately to mind)  northern Ireland, Yugoslavia (?     --  ========================================================================= ||     Name: Andrew James Fraser  E-mail: fraseraj@dcs.gla.ac.uk       || ||     ESE-3H student, University of Glasgow.			       || ||     Standard disclaimers...                                         ||