waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.12.04.27.07.1993.9920@athos.rutgers.edu> scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes: >Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed >since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not  >something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see >what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the  >stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so  >strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate >the sinner.  Though you can certaily assert all this, I don't see why it necessarily has to be the case. Why can't hate just stay as it is, and not beget more? Who says we have to get disgusted and start hating the sinner. I admit this happens, but I donlt think you can say it is always necessaily so.  Why can we not hate with a perfect hatred?  >In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our  >neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he  >commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians >supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one >way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We  Certainly we should love even our enemies. Amos 5:15 says to hate the evil and love the good. This can't contradict Christ's teaching. I think we tie up both hate and love with an emotional attitude, when it really should be considered more objectively. Surely I don't fly into a rage at every sin I see, but why can I not "hate" it?
wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:  >	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to >assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us >with the ability to produce life through sexual relations, >for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone. >Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision >through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power >to decide who should and should not be able to have  >children?  Should men be allowed to have babies, if that >is made possible.    In a word, yes.  I don't believe that physical knowledge has a great deal of impact on the power of God.  In the past, God gave us the ability to create life through sexual relations.  Now, he is giving us the ability to create life through in vitro fertilization.  The difference between the two is merely  cosmetic, and even if we gain the ability to create universes we won't begin to approach the glory of God.   The power we are being given is a test, and I am sure that in many cases we will use our new abilities unwisely.  But, people have been using sexuality unwisely for millenia and I haven't heard an outcry to abolish it yet!   No matter how far we extend our dominion over the physical world, we aren't impinging on God's power.  It's only when we attempt to gain control of the spiritual world, those things that can't be approached through science and  logic, that we begin to interfere with God.
In article <Apr.22.00.56.15.1993.2073@geneva.rutgers.edu> hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:  >A similar analogy might be a medical doctor who believes that a blood  >transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child whose parents are  >Jehovah's Witnesses and so have conscientious objections to blood  >transfusion. The doctor's efforts to persuade them to agree to a blood  >transfusion could be perceived to be arrogant in precisely the same way as  >Christians could be perceived to be arrogant.  >The truth or otherwise of the belief that a blood transfusion is necessary  >to save the life of the child is irrelevant here. What matters is that the  >doctor BELIEVES it to be true, and could be seen to be trying to foce his  >beliefs on the parents, and this could well be perceived as arrogance.  Let me carry that a step further.  Most doctors would not claim to be  infallible.  Indeed, they would generally admit that they could conceivably be wrong, e.g. that in this case, a blood tranfusion might not turn out to  be necessary after all.  However, the doctors would have enough confidence and conviction to claim, out of genuine concern, that is IS necessary.  As fallible human beings, they must acknowledge the possibility that they are wrong.  However, they would also say that such doubts are not reasonable, and stand by their convictions.
Phil Sells writes:  > Probably a tired old horse, but...  maybe with a slightly different > twist.  I wanted to know if there are any good English-language texts > for learning ancient Hebrew, and how these compare with German > educational texts qualitywise, if anybody has an idea.  I can't figure > out if I should buy one here for later study or wait until I get back to > the U.S.  My impression is that *for advanced work* you will be much better off with German reference works (lexicons, concordances especially).  For a first-time encounter, my *personal* preference would be to deal with a textbook written in my native language.  But if you know German and are in Germany, pick up all the reference books you think you can handle.  (I only know these works by reputation, since my German is most rusty, but I'd look at the following books: Koehler's lexicon, Mandeldern's concordance, the Jenni & Westermann theological dictionary of the OT.)  > What's it like at divinity schools or seminaries in the States?  Is > there a lot of language instruction done?  I really don't have a basis > for comparison.  The amount of language instruction available at US seminaries varies widely, mostly depending on the denominational heritage of the school.  Presbyterian and Reformed seminaries probably place a lot more emphasis on the biblical languages than others.  (Of course, any divinity school that has a doctoral program in biblical studies is going to have extensive language resources!  But there are quite a few masters-degree-granting seminaries here at which the attitude seems to be more, "Well, if you're *really* interested we'll give you a semester-long course, but we don't understand why . . .")
Hey...  I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...  HOW GREAT IS TH LOVE THE FATHER HAS LAVISHED ON US, THAT WE SHOULD BE CALLED CHILDREN OF GOD!  AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE!  (1 JOHN 3:1)
In article <Apr.19.05.14.21.1993.29291@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:  >You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the >ceremonial laws.   Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.  First of all, "ceremonial law" is an extraScriptural term.  It is sometimes used as a framework to view Scripture.  But if you look at Collosions, without going into it with the assumption that the Sabbath cannot be  a ceremonial law, you will see that it does refer to the sabbath.  Paul writes in Collosions 2:14-17 how that Christ nailed the laws that were against us to His cross, and therefore we should not be judged in what what food we eat, what we drink, the keeping of new moons and holy days, or the keeping of the sabbath.  The word for sabbath in this verse is "sabbaton" and is used throughout the New Testament to refer to the 7th day.  If there is any Scripture from which we get the idea of the ceremonial law, this is one of them, and the sabbath is listed among the ceremonial laws.  If one goes into this with the fundamental assumption "the sabbath cannot be a ceremonial law" then he will have to find some way around it, like saying that this can only refer to the other sabbath holy days besides the 7tH day, Because "the sabbath cannot be a ceremonial law."  But Paul is very careful in his letters to add some kind of parenthetcal  statement if there is anything that can be seen as a liscence to sin in his writings.  Also, why is the sabbath absent from the epistles (except for Hebrews 4, which talks about the rest that comes through faith?)  Surely it would have been a big problem for first century Christians living in a society that did not rest on the 7th day.  Especially slaves. Many new converst were slaves.  It would have been difficult for slaves to rest on the sabbath if it had been mandatory.  Why is there no mention of this in the epistles?
>>>>> On 2 May 93 13:53:23 GMT, damon@math.okstate.edu (HASTINGS DAMON TOD) said:  > A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never created, then > we could not exist.  Therefore we were created, and therefore there exists a > Creator.  > Is this statement considered to be a valid proof by many Christians (and > followers of other religions, I suppose)?  [rest deleted]  Some variant is quite popular.  This, and other arguments, are discussed in John Leslie Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism: arguments for and against the existence of God".  Although Mackie ultimately sides with "against", his arguments are, I think, quite fair to both sides.  Brief discussions can be found in the alt.atheism FAQs.
>Eugene Bigelow writes:  >>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true, >how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?  Andrew Byler writes:  >[What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they >deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf >Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as >purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it >is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven....  As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)]
jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher) writes:  >Please, define cell church.  I missed it somewhere in the past when this >was brought up before.  In a cell church, the fundamental building block is the "cell group" -- a small group of no more than 15 believers.  The small groups are responsible for the ministry of the church: evangelism and discipleship.  The emphasis is on relationships, not on programs, and both the evangelism and the discipling are relationship-based.  This will probably raise more questions than it answered, but that's it in a nutshell.
In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu wrote: > Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check   > out: > 	Romans 1:27 > 	I Corinthians 6:9 > 	I Timothy 1:10 > 	Jude 1:7 > 	II Peter 2:6-9 > 	Gen. 19 > 	Lev  18:22 > (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality) >  > In Christ's Love, > Bryan Whitsell  Like we have never heard of, or read these verses before?  How about you read them in context, taking into consideration the times and  places in which they were written; the local customs and pagan rituals;  what the surrounding verses are talking about and how they interact with  the rest of the Bible.  There are many issues in the Bible that are argued, and can be argued  successfullly from both sides of an issue.  Some examples that come to mind are  		Gifts of the Spirit 		when the Rapture will occur(pre or post tribulation) 		how people should be baptized to name a few.  I have found nothing in scripture that condemns me, or anyone else, for having a monogamous relationship with the person whom I love, even if we are the same sex.  I'm sorry if I am coming across as heated.  It's just that the Lord has been so dear to me the last several years and I'm tired of hearing this same old thing from people who believe what their told rather than finding out for  themselves.  Check it out for yourself.  Invite the Holy Spirit to guide you.  If I weren't confident of this I wouldn't invite you to do this.
poram%mlsma@att.att.com wrote: : Having met Peter Kingston (of WBT) some years back, he struck me  : as an exemplery and dedicated Christian whose main concern was with : translation of the Word of God and the welfare of the people : group he was serving. : WBT literature is concerned mainly with providing Scripture : in minority languages.  Yes, in fact Peter is now at Wycliffe HQ in the U.K., and is a member of my church. I would fully endorse the above -- Peter is a very Godly man, with a passion for serving Christ.  On one occasion he specifically addressed the issue of ``cultural interference'' in a sermon, presumably from his experience of allegations directed at Wycliffe. (Perhaps I could find the tape...?)
In article <May.7.01.08.07.1993.14306@athos.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes: > >Granting that, I think Christianity, as a relationship with Jesus and >a love for God and one's own soul, stands just fine without hell. I >don't believe, or see any evidence in scripture, that hell is presented >as a stick with which to beat people towards heaven.  I certainly agree with the last paragraph.  Also, Jesus;s statements on hell can be treated as totally symbolic, allegorical or as parables, as was much of his other teaching.  There's more than enough hell here on earth that we are freed from by following Jesus that the rest just doesn't mattter to me.  And the fact that we can be free of the hell here is the best gift God offers.  Eternal life begins for us now and we do not wait to start partaking of the divine nature and journeying on the path to deification.  Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --
In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu> gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes: > >I was raised in a religious atmosphere, and attended 13 years of >religious educational institutions..  I know the bible well. So well >I can recognize many passages from memory.    [stuff deleted for brevity]  >Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are  >because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life >a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is  >follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness." >For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"  Your very starting point is wrong.  Christianity is not based on following a moral standard.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith... NOT BY WORKS so that no man may boast."  (Eph. 2:7-8)  You say that you know the Bible well, and can recognize (do you mean recite?) many passages from memory.  That could very well be so.  However, it looks like there are a few more passages that you should pay attention to.  (Titus 3:5 and James 2:10 are among them.)  Obedience to the moral law is imporant.  However, it is supposed to be the result of turning your life over to Christ and becoming a Christian.  It is by no means the starting point.
gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:  > Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.  There is a certain truth to this statement. Only I would use the word "medicine" instead of drug.  With regard to the condition of the human soul, Christianity is first and foremost a healing medicine.  It also strengthens and enables one, as healing takes hold, to grow in new strength and health to live and be and to do that for which God created  us.  > Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.    Christ's medicine, rightly allowed to work, brings one nearer to reality and offers the clarity of understanding and the strength of spirit with which to meet it in a healthy human way.  > Christians inject themselves with Jesus and live with that high.   (small spelling correction added)
>We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual,  >we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about  >Jesus Christ.   Gaining entry into heaven cannot be done without first being cleansed by   the blood of Jesus.   Sin cannot dwell in heaven.  It is against the natural laws of God.   Being converted to christianity means being baptized by the Holy Spirit.   You cannot get to heaven by good works only.   Because of the union with the holy spirit, the man's behavior will change.   If there is true union he will not desire to be homosexual.  Fornication   and homosexuality will leave your life if you are truly baptized by the   holy spirit.  It's not to say that we don't stumble now and then.
My first and most important point is that regardless of how your recovery happened, I'm glad it did!  On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved...        user Karen Lauro@camelot.brad writes: >	I found it ore than coincidental that less than 2 weeks after >I put my faith where my mouth was, one more in the long line of doctors >and not even an orthopeodic specialist, diagnosed my problems with no >difficulty, set me on the path to an effective cure, and I was walking >and running again without the pain that had stopped me from that for >4 years. The diagnosis was something he felt the other doctors must have >"overlooked" because it was perfectly obvious from my test results.  NOW!  The point that I'll try to make is that coincidences like this occur with a very high frequency.  How many of us have been thinking of someone and had that person call?  Much of the whole psychic phenomenon is easily explicable by this - one forgets the misses.  Consider your astrological forcast in the newspaper.  How many times have you said "That's me" vs "That's not me"?  You'll remember the hits, but the misses will be much more frequent.  On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved...        user Karen Lauro@camelot.brad writes: >	Maybe this doesn't hit you as miraculous. But to me it really >is. Imagine an active 17 year old being told she may not be able to >walk mcuh longer...and is now a happy 18 year old who can dance and run >knowing that the problem was there all along and was "revealed" just >after she did what she knew was right. As the song says...  And what if, instead if being healed, your affliction got much worse and you ended up paralyzed?  Would you have attributed that to god as well? Or would that have been the work of satan?  If you believe that would have been so, why ONLY good from god, and ONLY evil from satan?  Couldn't the agony have come from god?  Think about what he did to poor Job!    David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland! ====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D===== Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"
In article <Apr.7.23.20.24.1993.14263@athos.rutgers.edu>,  	3225200@qucdn.queensu.ca writes: > I have heard an interesting notion that sin can "block" our prayers to God, > i.e. God will not hear our prayers if we have not confessed our sins. Now I am > totally supportive of confessing our sins before God, but I simply do not > believe God will "shut us out" just because we did not confess. This is kind of > like the idea that suffering is caused by sin, which, as any Job reader will > realize, is too simpilistic. {rest deleted}  Can the Father possibly not hear the words of His children. Of course He hears all your prayers. Whether you are a sinner or a saint, no questions. The real question you should be asking is: "Does sin block OUR hearing His answer?" And the answer to that question is a resounding YES. To paraphrase the gospel "Many are called but few choose to listen" and so it is with prayer.    In Christ,  James --  _____________________________________________________________________________ James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences Computing Unit			La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA                                  James.Hale@Latrobe.Edu.Au
Although simplistic I have always liked the fact that "a Christian is one who not only believes in God, but believes God."  After all the name was first given externally to identify those who "preached Christ and Him crucified" to pay the price of their rebeliion and shortcomings before God.  God said this was His son -- I belive Him. --  Scott Dittman                    email: sdittman@wlu.edu University Registrar             talk: (703)463-8455   fax: (703)463-8024 Washington and Lee University    snail mail:  Lexington Virginia 24450
In article <Apr.15.00.57.56.1993.28857@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes: > >> I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in >> the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread. >> There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New >> Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.  I am not so sure of Jewish proselytism then, but I would like to relate an account of a recent dinner I had with Jews a few months ago.  The dinner was instigated by the aunt of the hostess, whom I had met while visiting my wife in Galveston last October.  The dear old aunt (now  deceased) was very proud of her Jewish heritage, although not especially devout.  Her parents were both murdered in Nazi concentration camps in Austria during WWII because they were Jewish.  While conversing with her about politics, world affairs and religion, she remarked that it would  be a good idea for me to visit her niece on my return to Atlanta.  Within two days of returning to Atlanta, her niece called to invite me over for dinner with her husband.  I went, not knowing really what to expect, other than stimulating conversation and fellowship.  What I got, however, was rather unexpected.  The thrust of the evening's discussion was to condemn the Reagan-Bush policies prohibiting abortion counseling  in federally funded family planning clinics, prohibiting the sterilization of minorities on welfare here and in Puerto Rico, on the ban on fetal tissue research, and against the Mexico City policy, "which denies U.S. foreign aid to programs overseas that promote abortion."  The crux of their position was to place the blame for the problems of "overpopulation," rampant domestic crime, African starvation, unwed mothers, etc., on Christianity, rather on the fall of Adam.  Now, this is not what I had to come to talk about.  But every time I tried to  bring up the subject of Judaism, they would condemn Jews for Jesus and admonish me against converting to Judaism, "because it involves too much study and effort."  And I did not even raise the prospect, nor try to convert them to the truth of Christ!  There was certainly no Jewish proselytism going on there.  And again, last November I toured a "traditional" Jewish synagogue and was subjected to a 30-minute harangue against Jesus and Christianity in general.  I realize that these are two isolated incidents, and that the best supervisor I ever had at work is Jewish, but from my experience, the modern Jew is not known for his proselytism.    --  boundary
Michael Siemon writes:  >Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the Reformers "threw out" these >books.  Basically, they just placed them in a secondary status (as Jerome >had already done), but with the additional warning that doctrine should >not be based on citations from these ALONE.  Protestants love to play up Jerome for all he is worth. They should remeber that after the Decree of Pope St. Damsus I, Jerome did not hesitate in accpeting the deuteroncanon, and quoted them as Scripture in his later writings.  And as I have already pointed out, in a previous letter on this subject, the Catholic Church has accepted the deuterocanon from the beginning.  And the Protestants in the 1500's all of a sudden revived the old theory of some, condemned by Pope, Council, and Church, that the deuterocanon were not inspired.  Again, why must the Church of Jesus Christ adopt the canon of the unbelieving Jews, drawn up in Jamnia in 90 AD, in countering the Christian use of the Septuagint.                 ^^^^^