waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.12.03.44.39.1993.18842@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes: >In article <Apr.10.05.31.46.1993.14368@athos.rutgers.edu>, luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma) writes: >> In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>   >>  >> "Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to   >> tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being   >> burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a   >> scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,    >No one was ever flogged, beaten, burned, fed to the lions, or killed in any >other way because of a belief in the resurrection - sorry to disappoint you.  I think you are vastly oversimplifying things. We know that early Christians suffered totures because of their witness to Christ.  For example:  ACT 5:40    His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had             them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of             Jesus, and let them go.  ACT 5:41    The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been             counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.  It appears that the Jewish rulers of that time had a particular aversion to even hearing Jesus's name. ACT 5:28    "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said.             "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are             determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."  Finally, the first apostle's death, James of Zebedee was certainly not by Rome's hand any more than the first martyr Stephen.    >The idea of resurrection is one which can be found in a host of different >forms in the religions of antiquity.  The problem was not the resurrection >which was a mediorce issue for a tiny fragment of the Jewish population   The problem was that if one believed in the Resurrection, then one must believe in Jesus as truly being the Son of God and what He stood for and preached during His ministry on Earth.  That would have been extremely difficult for some people, especially those that had plotted to kill Him.   >randy
vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas) writes: > 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. >  > I can't find the reference right now, but didn't C.S.Lewis speculate  > somewhere that hell might be "the state of once having been a human  > soul"? Why is it that we have this notion that God takes some sort of pleasure from punishing people?  The purpose of hell is to destroy the devil and his angels.  To the earlier poster who tried to support the eternal hell theory with the fact that the fallen angels were not destroyed, remember the Bible teaches that God has reserved them until the day of judgement.  Their judgement is soon to come.  Let me suggest this.  Maybe those who believe in the eternal hell theory should provide all the biblical evidence they can find for it.  Stay away from human theories, and only take into account references in the bible.
dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:  >I find it interesting that cls never answered any of the questions posed.  >Then he goes on the make statements which make me shudder.  He has >established a two-tiered God.  One set of rules for the Jews (his people) >and another set for the saved Gentiles (his people).  Why would God >discriminate?  Does the Jew who accepts Jesus now have to live under the >Gentile rules. >  >God has one set of rules for all his people.  Paul was never against the >law.  In fact he says repeatedly that faith establishes rather that annuls >the law.  Paul's point is germane to both Jews and Greeks.  The Law can >never be used as an instrument of salvation.  And please do not combine >the ceremonial and moral laws in one. >  >In Matt 5:14-19 Christ plainly says what He came to do and you say He was >only saying that for the Jews's benefit.  Your Christ must be a >politician, speaking from both sides of His mouth.  As Paul said, "I have >not so learned Christ."  Forget all the theology, just do what Jesus says. > Your excuses will not hold up in a court of law on earth, far less in >God's judgement hall.  Pardon me for being a little confused, but at the beginning of your second  paragraph, you say, "God has one set of rules for all his people," yet at the  end of the same paragraph you declare, "please do not combine the ceremonial  and moral laws in one."  Not only do I not understand where in the Bible you  find the declaration that there are 2 laws (ceremonial and moral), but I am  also unclear on whether you think it is bad to have 2 sets of laws in the first  place.  If it's bad to have 2 sets of laws, how can there be a ceremonial law  that is different from the moral law (and vice versa)?  I would also be interested in your comments on the passage in I Cor. 10:1-16,  where Paul teaches different rules for covering you head while praying  depending on whether you are a man or a woman.  Do you think the apostles can  prescribe different sets of rules for men and women?  If so, then why not for  Jews and Gentiles?  Also, why did Paul, who was so opposed to circumcising  Gentiles, voluntarily circumcise Timothy?
What is the basis of the idea of hell being a place of eternal suffering?  If it is Biblical, please reference.  Here's my train of thought: If God is using the Earth to manufacture heavenly beings, then it is logical that there would be a certain yield, and a certain amount of waste.  The yield goes to Heaven, and the waste is burned (destroyed) in Hell.  Why is it necessary to punish the waste, rather than just destroy it?  Peace and joy,
{Dan Johnson asked for evidence that the most effective abuse  recovery programs involve meeting people's spiritual needs.  I responded:  In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps  involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-  recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.}  Dan Johnson clarified: >What I was asking is this: > >Please show me that the most effective substance-absure recovery >programs involve meetinsg peoples' spiritual needs, rather than >merely attempting to fill peoples' spiritual needs as percieved >by the people, A.A, S.R.C. regulars, or snoopy.
Dave Bernard writes:   > When Elizabeth greeted Mary with the words: "Blessed art thou  > among women" (Luke 1:42), it appears that this places Mary  > beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.  But Deborah says (Judges 5:24):   > Blessed among women shall be Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite,  > Blessed above all women in the tents.  It can doubtless be taken that Jael's slaying of Sisera was a type of Mary's victory over sin. But even if we take Deborah's words as applying prophetically or symbolically to Mary, they must still be applicable literally to Jael.  We may well take them to mean that God used her as a part of His plan for the deliverance of His people, and that she has this in common with Mary.  But we have no reason to suppose that they mean that she was sinless, and thus no reason to take the like expression applied to Mary as proof that she was sinless.
This is what the LORD Almighty says: "You who now hear these words spoken by the prophets who were there when the foundation was laid for the house of the LORD Almighty, let your hands be strong so that the temple may be built.
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?  For the Record:  On February 5, 1981, at a House of Representatives Interior Committee Meeting, Rep. James Weaver (D, Ore), asked Watt whether "you agree that we should save some of our scenic resources for our children, not just gobble them up all at once?" Watt's answer was:   < Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the  < Interior must have -- to be steward for the natural resources  < for this generation as well as future generations. I do not  < know how many future generations we can count on before the  < Lord returns.  Whatever it is, we have to manage with a skill  < to have the resources needed for future generations.  My source is a column by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak on the op-ed page of the WASHINGTON POST for Friday 21 August 1981.
A friend of mine managed to get a copy of a computerised Greek and Hebrew  Lexicon called "The Word Perfect" (That is not the word processing  package WordPerfect). However, some one wiped out the EXE file, and she  has not been able to restore it. There are no distributors of the package in  South Africa. I would appreciate it, if some one could email me the file, or  at least tell me where I could get it from.   My email address is 	fortmann@superbowl.und.ac.za     or 	fortmann@shrike.und.ac.za   Many thanks.
perhaps you can tell your friend that you feel pressured by his continual discussions of this topic -- surely he doesn't feel you should be _pressured_ into something you feel uncomfortable about (since christianity should be a choice one should make on one's own). please also realize that he is doing this out of friendship -- he probably feels you are missing out on something great, and wants to tell you about it.  but since you know where you can learn about christianity, you can tell him that it is now up to you to make that choice, and if the choice is no, you should be respected for that. personally i believe that a christian's mission is just to be christ-like, showing his/her own faith and happiness in that faith, and make sure people know they are welcome to talk to you about it.  i do not believe in imposing your beliefs upon others -- but then again everyone's definitions of "imposing" may differ.
Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote: : In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:  : |>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals, : |>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all : |>together with Troy Perry.   : |>  : Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug : addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too.  So what's : your point?  Is it OK. just because the people are nice?  The point is not about being "nice."  "Nice" is not a christian virtue.  The point is that the gifts and fruits of the spirit (by their fruits you shall know them- Mt 7:20) are manifested by and among prayerful, spirit-filled GAY christians.  It was the manifestation of the spirit among the gentiles that convinced Peter (Acts 10) that his prejudice against them (based on scripture, I might add) was not in accordance with God's intentions.  : I think the old saying " hate the sin and not the sinner" is : appropriate here.  Many who belive homosexuality is wrong probably : don't hate the people.  I don't.  I don't hate my kids when they do : wrong either.  But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't : admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or : repent, they get punished.  I think this is quite appropriate.  You : may want to be careful about how you think satan is working here. : Maybe he is trying to destroy our sense of right and wrong through : feel goodism.  Maybe he is trying to convince you that you know more : than God.  Kind of like the Adam and Eve story.  Read it and compare : it to today's mentality.  You may be suprised.  Of course the whole issue is one of discernment.  It may be that Satan is trying to convince us that we know more than God.  Or it may be that God is trying (as God did with Peter) to teach us something we don't know- that "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35).
In article <Apr.20.03.01.40.1993.3769@geneva.rutgers.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes: > >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... >  I see some irony here. Jesus was willing to go through torture to free you from the definite promise of hell (based on Adam/Eve's fall from grace) but rather than allow him to stand in your place, you would give up your redemption to stand with those who do not accept his grace. God would rather have none in hell, which seems to put the burden of  choice on us. Of course, this is all fictional anyway since you reject him also.  My former sociology professor once told us at the beginning of our term, "you all start out with an A...what you do with that during the course of this term is up to you". In the beginning...Adam and Eve were given an A.
I have been told that I seem to be very smug in my post.  I appoligize if anyone felt this way. I did not at all desire to come across in that way. I was trying to express that I didn't understand his logic and that I wished him the best in his life.
In article 28334@athos.rutgers.edu, dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) writes:  > This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile > the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection > people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?  That's the whole point, David.  As spirits separated from their bodies and living in the spirit world, they cannot undergo the ordinance of marriage, just as they cannot be baptized, since there is no physical body to be baptized.  We perform these ordinances as proxies for them, in their behalf.  Thanks for asking.  Brooks  *************************************************************************** * Brooks Haderlie (brh54@cas.org) * " O be wise; what can I say more?" * * Columbus, OH by way of Ucon, ID * - Jacob 6:12 * *
I've just read Carol's response and I just had to get into this.  I've got some verses which are not subject to interpretation because they say what they say.  They are 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and Galatians 1:11-12.    Also, based on the fact that Jesus is the Word incarnate and he judges people if they follow him (see Acts 17:29-31 and John 5:21-27) and that those who reject Jesus' teachings are judged by the very words he spoke (see John 12:47-50), then Jesus' words are true and do not need interpretation, nor would it be just of God to judge based on his word if it had to be interpreted.
phil.launchbury@almac.co.uk (Phil Launchbury) writes:  > >The "apostate church" of Revelation most likely refers to the 1st century > >Jews who rejected their Messiah and had Him crucified.  John refers to them  > I'm afraid not. It refers to the church that Christ founded. Many, many > times he warns that the church will fall away into heresy as do the > apostles. For an example look at the parables in Matthew 13:31-33. They > refer to 'the kingdom of heaven' (the church) and the process of how > they will be corrupted.  Sorry, but I think this interpretation of the Matthew 13 parables is nonsense. I.e.,  > 'yeast' - *ALWAYS* stands for sin/corruption/heresy. For example 'beware > of the yeast of the Pharisees'. ...  Matthew 16:12 explains that by "leaven of the Pharisees" Jesus was simply referring to their teaching; not sin/corruption/heresy.  Jesus gaves His apostles the keys of the kingdom and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church.
The cited passages are covered IN DEPTH in a FAQ for this group. That particular FAQ (I've forgotten the author) discusses the traditional vs. pro-homosexual interpretations of the passages and indicates which points have strong textual support.  Perhaps the moderator might give again the instructions for retrieving the FAQ on this topic?  BTW, this issue, while dealt with before, is VERY timely.  One of the major Presbyterian churches in California (St. Andrews -- a  MegaChurch in a rich neighborhood) is withholding their support of  Synod (amounts to about 10% of the budget of the Synod, which  covers all of Southern CA and Hawaii) until support for a  pro-homosexual lobbying group (the Lazarus Project) is terminated. [This came from a news report on CNN yesterday -- corrections welcome.] 					Tim  [I think it's time for me to post the FAQ.    This is an issue throughout the Presbyterian Church.  On the other side, one of the major churches in Cincinnati has been ordaining homosexual elders, and has ignored Presbytery instructions not to do so.  And the church in Rochester where the judicial commission said they couldn't install a homosexual pastor has made her an "evangelist".  These situations, as well as the one you describe, do not appear to be stable.  This will certainly be a major topic for the General Assembly next month.  If the church can't come up with a solution that will let people live with each other, I think we're end up with a split.  Clearly neither side wants that, but I think we'll get pushed into it by actions of both sides.
Pardon me if this is the wrong newsgroup.  I would describe myself as an agnostic, in so far as I'm sure there is no single, universal supreme being, but if there is one and it is just, we will surely be judged on whether we lived good lives, striving to achieve that goodness that is within the power of each of us.  Now, the complication is that one of my best friends has become very fundamentalist.  That would normally be a non-issue with me, but he feels it is his responsibility to proselytize me (which I guess it is, according to his faith).  This is a great strain to our friendship.  I would have no problem if the subject didn't come up, but when it does, the discussion quickly begins to offend both of us: he is offended because I call into question his bedrock beliefs; I am offended by what I feel is a subscription to superstition, rationalized by such circular arguments as 'the Bible is God's word because He tells us in the Bible that it is so.'  So my question is, how can I convince him that this is a subject better left undiscussed, so we can preserve what is (in all areas other than religious beliefs) a great friendship?  How do I convince him that I am 'beyond saving' so he won't try?  Thanks for any advice.
(Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:     Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.  For    Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'  Consequently, faith    comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word    of Christ."     So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the    gospel.  Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached.  Kids    are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to    respond to God's word.  Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot    be raised in baptism to a new life.  Catholics view the effects of Baptism slightly differently, and that's one primary reason why they baptize babies.  They believe that Baptism produces a change in the soul of the baby, quite independently of any volitional act on the part of the baby.  This change in the baby's soul gives the infant certain capabilities that he would not have without Baptism.  Since the infant does not have the use of his intellect and will yet, these new faculties are dormant.  But as the child gets older, the gifts of Baptism come more and more into play.     Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins will die.  The son will not share the    guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.  The    righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the    wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."     If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty    for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.  Adam was given a number of gifts by God.  The chief among them was what Catholics call "sanctifying grace".  (In the New Testament, the word used for this is "charity".)  By his sin, Adam lost this grace. He didn't lose it just for himself, however, he lost it for the whole human race.  Because once he lost it, he couldn't pass it on to his descendents.  That's why Catholics baptize babies.  Through his Original Sin, Adam lost sanctifying grace for all his descendents.  Christ instituted Baptism to give it back to everyone.
From article <Apr.15.00.58.22.1993.28891@athos.rutgers.edu>, by ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci): > Coming from a long line of "hot tempered" people, I know temper when I see > it.  One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is > when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.    I do hope that you are not suggesting that merely because a person replies in an "acrid, angry and sarcastic" manner that this demonstrates their 'non-christianity'?  The simple fact is that there is not a Christian on the face of the planet (that I know of!) that is perfect.  I have been known at times to have a fit of temper, or a sulk, but this does not make me any the less a Christian.  One of the points of being a Christian (as I perceive it) is to become MORE LIKE Christ.  This statement inherently suggests that we ARE NOT already like Christ.  Jesus never unrighteously lost his temper.  I do.  Jesus was perfect.  I'm not.  > We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again > christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to > christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were > "spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and > sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries.   You must understand that this is because Christians often forget to treat others as our role-model - Christ - would.  This is because we are human and falible.  I, for one, do not pretend to be infalible, and I hope that my fellow-men will bear with me when I make mistakes.  This surely is not too much to ask, when I make every effort to bear with _them_.   > You don't need any enemies.  You already do yourselves the greatest harm.  And don't we know it!  > Again I say, foolish, foolish, foolish.  Again I say, we are ALL human!  To my brethren, this:    Ms Duticci has a valid point and we as Christians ought to heed the warning in her article.  We oftimes discredit ourselves and our Saviour, in the way that we treat others.  Strive towards the goal set us by our Lord, but in the meantime, remember :       "There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ..."  When you blow it - go easy on yourself.  Forgive yourself, as your Father in heaven forgives you!  And remember - and this is something I firmly beieve and cling to - one day, we shall see Him face to face, and in that day, we shall (finally!) be perfected.    I look forward to seeing you there.        RRRRR        OO       BBBBB          :      R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :      R     R   OO    OO    B    BB        :          Robert Pomeroy      R   RR    O      O    B    B         :      RRRR      O      O    BBBBB          :    u2i02@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk      R  R      O      O    B    B         :      R   R     OO    OO    B    BB        :              1993      R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :      R     R      OO       BBBBB          :   PS  If you want to draw anything to my attention, then please mail me direct, because I don't often read the news...