waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.9.01.10.38.1993.16892@athos.rutgers.edu> evensont@spot.Colorado.EDU (EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL) writes: >In article <Apr.7.01.56.20.1993.22789@athos.rutgers.edu> reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes: >>Deon.Strydom@f7.n7104.z5.fidonet.org (Deon Strydom) writes: >> >Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the Bible a closed >book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go around saying "God told >me this" and "Jesus told me that"?  Wouldn't that imply that God is STILL >pouring out new revelation to us?  I know that some people will feel >that is okay, and some will not.  The concept of a closed canon would >certainly cast a shadow on contemporary prophets.  On the other hand, >an open canon seems to be indicated sometimes. >  Let's get back to basics.  Canon (from the latin) means a rule.  If we say that a rule is open then its a rule made to be broken.   There is an issue also of measurement against a rule.  Thus the words that are spoken need to be compared against the rule/canon but not added to the canon.  Is new revelation necessary?  Topical, current, personal revelation I'd say is necessary.  New revelation for all people for all times is not necessary as we have that in Scripture.  You also seem to confuse canon with scripture.  Scripture may speak of itself being open - ie God speaking today.  It would speak that it is closed in the sense that the canon is unchangeable.  (Though the concept of canon is later historically.)  >Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies are nothing new >but rather an inspired translation of scripture.  Is it right to call >that prophecy?  Misleading?  Wouldn't that be more having to do with >knowledge?  I know, the gift of knowledge may not be as exciting to >talk about, but shouldn't we call a horse a horse? >  I agree with the problem of confusion.  If prophecy is meant to encourage, exhort or correct then is an overlap with scripture.  If prophecy is meant to bring a `word' of the form "the man you live with is not your husband" then that is knowledge.  Yet the exact words their are scripture. I would expect the difference to be the motive and means for delivery. The reading of scripture itself can be a powerful force.  Regards  David
In article <Apr.13.00.08.33.1993.28409@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: >Dean Velasco quoted a letter from James M Stowell, president of >Moody Bible Institute: > >>  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." > >There has been a lot of discussion, but so far nobody seems to have hit on >exactly what the criticism of "arrogance" is aimed at. > > <lots of stuff deleted> > >This is where the "arrogance of Christians" arises: many people believe >that their own personal research can give them absolute certainty about the >doctrines of Christianity -- they are implicitly claiming that they are >infallible, and that there is no possibility of mistake. > >Claiming that you CANNOT have made a mistake, and that your thinking has led >you to a flawless conclusion, is pretty arrogant.  I agree with what Darren has to say here, but would like to add a  personal observation.  What I see as arrogance and the problem I have  with it is not a sense of personal certainty, but a lack of respect for others who come to differing conclusions.  Clearly, this is not just  Christian vs. Non-Christian; there is a whole spectrum of belief systems within Christianity.  I do not tend to argue with others about matters of personal faith because, like aesthetics, it is not demonstable by objective means.    Choosing what to believe and rely on are important areas of personal  sovereignty.  What bothers me is when others suggest that, in these  matters of faith, their specific beliefs are not only true to them  but are absolute and should be binding on others.  It follows from this that God must give everyone the same revelation of truth, and thus  anyone who comes to a different conclusion is intentionally choosing the wrong path.  This is the arrogance I see; a lack of respect for the honest conclusions of others on matters which are between them and God. Even a personal certainty leaves room for the beliefs of others.  It is universalizing those matters of personal faith, coupled by a proud notion that one's relationship with God is superior to other's, that leads to arrogance.  In my honest (and nonuniversal) opinion. :-)   >Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu >"At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded." >                                                    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein  comments, criticism welcome... -Ken alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu
In article <Apr.15.00.58.18.1993.28885@athos.rutgers.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes: > >And the two simplest refutations are these: > >(1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament. >I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that >the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other >contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain >being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection >is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years >after the supposed event.  First, off I'd say that the impact if right before your eyes! 8-) That we are even discussing this is a major impact in and of itself. Further, the early church bears testimony to the impact.  >(2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no >one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely >explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers). >Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one >gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make >up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does >record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really >guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.  Of course they knew where it was. Don't forget that Jesus was seen by both the Jews and the Romans as a troublemaker. Pilate was no fool and didn't  need the additional headaches of some fishermen stealing Jesus' body to  make it appear He had arisen. Since Jesus was buried in the grave of a  man well know to the Sanhedrin, to say that they didn't know where He was buried begs the question.  Now, you say that you think that the disciples stole the body. But think on this a moment. Would you die to maintain something you KNEW to be a  deliberate lie!? If not, then why do you think the disciples would!? Now, I'm not talking about dying for something you firmly believe to be the truth,  but unbeknown to you, it is a lie. Many have done this. No, I'm talking about dying, by beheading, stoning, crucifixion, etc., for something you know to be a lie! Thus, you position with regards to the disciples stealing the  body seems rather lightweight to me.  As for graverobbers, why risk the severe penalties for grave robbing over  the body of Jesus? He wasn't buried with great riches. So, again, this is an argument that can be discounted.  That leaves you back on square one. What happened to the body!?  IHL, Gene  --    The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of      North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information         Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.            internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
(Well, I'll email also, but this may apply to other people, so I'll post also.)  >I've been working at this company for eight years in various >engineering jobs.  I'm female.  Yesterday I counted and realized that >on seven different occasions I've been sexually harrassed at this >company.  >I dreaded coming back to work today.  What if my boss comes in to ask >me some kind of question...  Your boss should be the person bring these problems to.  If he/she does not seem to take any action, keep going up higher and higher. Sexual harrassment does not need to be tolerated, and it can be an enormous emotional support to discuss this with someone and know that they are trying to do something about it.  If you feel you can not discuss this with your boss, perhaps your company has a personnel department that can work for you while preserving your privacy.  Most companies will want to deal with this problem because constant anxiety does seriously affect how effectively employees do their jobs.  It is unclear from your letter if you have done this or not.  It is not inconceivable that management remains ignorant of employee problems/strife even after eight years (it's a miracle if they do notice).  Perhaps your manager did not bring to the attention of higher ups?  If the company indeed does seem to want to ignore the entire problem, there may be a state agency willing to fight with you.  (check with a lawyer, a women's resource center, etc to find out)  You may also want to discuss this with your paster, priest, husband, etc.  That is, someone you know will not be judgemental and that is supportive, comforting, etc.  This will bring a lot of healing.  >So I returned at 11:25, only to find that ever single >person had already left for lunch.  They left at 11:15 or so.  No one >could be bothered to call me at the other building, even though my >number was posted.  This happens to a lot of people.  Honest.  I believe it may seem to be due to gross insensitivity because of the feelings you are going through.  People in offices tend to be more insensitive while working than they normally are (maybe it's the hustle or stress or...) I've had this happen to me a lot, often because they didn't realize my car was broken, etc.  Then they will come back and wonder why I didn't want to go (this would tend to make me stop being angry at being ignored and make me laugh).  Once, we went off without our boss, who was paying for the lunch :-)  >For this >reason I hope good Mr. Moderator allows me this latest indulgence.  Well, if you can't turn to the computer for support, what would we do?  (signs of the computer age :-)  In closing, please don't let the hateful actions of a single person harm you.  They are doing it because they are still the playground bully and enjoy seeing the hurt they cause.  And you should not accept the opinions of an imbecile that you are worthless - much wiser people hold you in great esteem.
Could the guy who wrote the article "Why I am not Bertrand Russell" resend me a copy?
>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong, >then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.  Unfortunatly, this seems to be how Christians are taught to think when it comes to their religion. Some take it to the extreme and say that their religion is the ONLY one and if you don't accept their teachings then you won't be "saved". It takes quite a bit of arrogance to claim to know what God thinks/wants. Especially when it's based upon your interpretation of a book. The logic in the above statement is faulty in that it assumes two people with differing beliefs can't both be correct. It's all about perception. No two people are exactly alike. No two people perceive everything in the same way. I believe that there is one truth. Call it God's truth, a universal truth, or call it what you will. I don't believe God presents this truth. I think it is just there and it's up to you to look for and see it, through prayer, meditation, inspir- ation, dreams or whatever. Just because people may perceive this truth differently, it doesn't mean one is wrong and the other is right. As an example, take the question, "Is the glass half empty or half full"? You can have two different answers which are contradictory and yet both are correct. So, for your belief to be true, does not require everyone else's belief to be wrong.
I recently had to move and forgot to update my address to the Orthodox mailing list. Can anyone e-mail me the address for changes and what exactly I have to put in caps, etc? (please send the original subscription address also). Thanks ahead of time! -Ed.
Hello. I just like to share this rosary and other prayer propagation practice we do in my country.  I am not sure if it is going on also here in the US or any other country.  In all these 4 1/2 yrs. I've been here in Illinois, USA, I have not encountered it.  May I just call it "Traveling Fatima" since I don't know of an exact translation of what we call it in my native language.  For certain regions in a district in a town or city, an image/ statue of our Lady of Fatima is moved from one home (originating from owner) to another.  This will stay with that family for one (1) week and this family is required to pray the rosary and other prayers (prayer sheets accompany the image) to our Lady of Fatima.  The move will be like a simple procession of folks picking up the image from its current 'home' after 'departing' prayers and proceeds to move it to the next home which has the prior notification about the move.  There will be the 'receiving' prayers at the next home to welcome our Lady of Fatima image there.  It does not have to be that only members of the family in that home who must pray to the image.  They may invite others (or others/friends can invite themselves in ;^)) to participate during prayer time in that 'new' home everyday for one week. This image is moved from one family to the next within the bounded region of that district, until it goes back to the owner of the image.  This is probably going on around there (Philippines) right now (or somebody correct me when exactly since I forgot) and every year, this is part of our devotion to our Lady of Fatima.  It has been easy to facilitate this back home because it is more likely that your next door neighbor is a Catholic and the image then is just moved next door.  I am thinking of starting something like it in the village where my sister and her family lives.  Most of our friends and neighbors there are Catholics and practicing ones.  I'd like to know if there are any state/community laws that this  practice will violate, whatsoever, before I go for it.  Thank you  for any comments or help about this matter.
In article <May.9.05.39.11.1993.27394@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:  >And it should be noted that the Monophysite Chruches of Egypt and Syria >also hold to this belief as part of divine revelation, even though they >broke away from the unity of the Chruch in 451 AD by rejecting the >Council of Chalcedon.  It might be argued by some Protestants that the >Catholics and Orthodox made this belief up, but the Monophysites, put a >big hole in that notion, as they also hold the belief, and they split >from the Chruch before the belief was first annunciated in writing (as >far as is known, much has been lost from the time of the Fathers).  The belief that the churches of Egypt and Syria were (or are) monophysite is  false, as is the belief that they often held that the Council of Chalcedon  was Nestorian.  These misunderstandings were exacerbated by political factors, and thus led  to schism - a schism that is on its way to being healed.
In article <May.12.04.29.48.1993.10041@athos.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:  	+  I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and 	+ between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall 	+ crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel. 	+ -Genesis 3.15     In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine.  	+ HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel.     The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar.
In article <Apr.19.05.13.02.1993.29198@athos.rutgers.edu>, jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett) writes: > ... > Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks):  Why don't > we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence?  ...  And how come we don't pass out bullet-proof vests in school to promote safe gun usage?
In article <May.11.02.37.07.1993.28120@athos.rutgers.edu>, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes: |> In the Monday, May 10 morning edition of the San Jose Mercury News an |> article by Sandra Gonzales at the top of page 12A explained convicted |> killer David Edwin Mason's troubled childhood saying, |>  |> 	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist |> 	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  ... |> 	[other instances of child abuse deleted] |>  |> Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with |> "Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would |> be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and |> the Mexican community as a whole.  ... |>  |> Why is it that open biggotry like this is practiced and encouraged by the |> San Jose Mercury News when it is pointed at the christian community?  Perhaps because there is a connection here that is not there in the Mexican variant you bring up.  That is, many (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians use the excuse of teaching their children Biblical morality to justify this sort of mistreatment. I do not see many Mexicans using their Mexican heritage as an excuse for abuse.  It is indeed this judgemental, controlling legalism of many fundamentalist Christians that has led me to reject that branch of our faith as not true to the Gospel of Christ, the gospel of love.  I have seen this sort of thing too often, even amoung my own relatives, to believe there is no relationship.  Judgementalism often leads to overly strict, and thus abusive, discipline of children. [This is not restricted to just Christian fundamentalism, it is found in many extreme sects of other legalistic religions].  |> Can a good christian continue to purchase newspapers and buy advertising in |> this kind of a newspaper?  This is really bad journalism. |>  I, too, am a Christian.  But I do not condone the use of the Bible to justify this sort of abuse.  I believe that it is only by exposing the horrors of the misapplication of the Biblical concept of discipline that such abuses can be stopped.  Just because someone is also a Christian does not mean we must identify eith them. This sort of sin needs to be made public.
This might be better directed to s.r.c.bible-study, which I have begun reading, but since my earlier notes were posted to this forum, I will conclude here as well.  A week ago, I managed to find time to consult a Septuagint Concordance and a LXX text with apparatus at the library, and I can now usefully conclude my look at the Greek words for love as used in the Christian background of the Septuagintal translation of the Jewish scriptures.  The principal result is that there is a cluster of uses of the verbal noun from _erao:_, _eraste:s_ meaning "lover."  This cluster occurs just where one might most expect it, in the propethic image (and accusation) of Israel as faithless spouse to YHWH.  The verses in question are Hosea 2:5,7 & 10; Jeremiah 4:30, 22:20 & 22; Lamentations 1:19; and Ezekiel 16:33, 36 &37 and 23:5, 9 & 22.  	[ Hosea seems to have originated this usage, which Jeremiah and 	  Ezekiel picked up;  Lamentations is dependent on, though not 	  likely written by, Jeremiah. ]  The "erotic" meaning (in its allegorical use, not at all literally) is evident.  So too in English, unless you complement it with a phrase like "of the arts" the word "lover" is going to have an overtone of sexual relationship.  There is no surprise here, but it is worthwhile to see that standard Greek usage *does* show up in the translations from the Hebrew! :-)  More interestingly, and some confirmation of my guess that later Koine usage avoided the verb _erao:_ because of its homonymy to _ero:_ (say), _eromai_ (ask), there is an error in Codex Vaticanus (normally, a very valuable witness) where a form of _erao:_ is used in a completely absurd context -- 2 Samuel 20:18, where the  meaning *must* be "say."  In addition to the above (and the uses I have already mentioned in Proverbs), Esther 2:17 uses the verb in its most natural application,   	kai e:rasthe" ho basileus Esthe:r  --  and the King loved Esther  and, rather more interestingly, 1 Samuel 19:2 supplies a modest degree of support to the gay appraisal of the relationship of David and Jonathan:  	kai Io:nathan huios Saoul e:[i]reito ton Dauid sphodra 	-- and Jonathan, Saul's son, loved David intensely  	[ I'm using the bracketed [i] for io:ta subscript, which I 	  don't yet have a reasonable ASCII convention for. ]  (The relevance of this to the gay issue is not anything implicit about the "historical" facts, but just that a quasi-official translation of the Hebrew text in the Hellenistic period makes no bones about using the "erotic" verb in this context.  Given the quite general usage of _agapao:_ for erotic senses, this need not mean anything "more" than _agapao:_ alone would mean, but it DOES disambiguate the relationship, as far as this translator goes!)
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:  >	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It  >is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it  >should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's  >sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the   	Typical statement from an irrational and brainwashed person. The bible was written by some male chavnist thousands of years ago (as were all of the "holy" books). Follow the parts that you think are suitable for modern life. Ignore the others. For heaven's (!) sake don't take it literally.  >same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives  >over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a  				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But   	So you think it is easy to be a Muslim? Or be a Buddhist? The Buddha's commandments are 500 yrs older than Christ's and in my opinion tougher to follow. Moreover the Buddha says that we are  intrinsically good (as against Christ's "we are all sinners").  Only we allow ourselves to be distracted. By meditating we can awaken  ourselves (etc etc). Also there is no concept of God in Buddhism.  (In my opinion you can be an Atheist and a Buddhist). But to "awaken" yourself is no easy task. Can you stay away from eating meat? Can you sit still and think of nothing (meditate) for sometime everyday? Buddhists do (or are supposed to). Can you pray five times a day?  Can you fast for a month every year (Ramzan). Are you willing to give 1/6 th of your income as tithe? Muslims do. In fact I think  Jesus was an ordinary man (just as Buddha and Mohamed) probably with a  philosopy ahead of the times (where he lived).  Considering the fact that Christianity is a young religion (compared to Hindiusm, Judaism, Zorasterism, Buddihsm) it is also very probable that the Bible is merely a collection of borrowed ideas. (There was a good deal of trade between the eastern lands and the middle east at the time of Christ). And perhaps some more. But leave the crap in it out ("woman was created after man, to be his helper" etc). aras  	  >just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes  >time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.   >It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in  >a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this  >time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be   	When ever I turn on my TV there is this Pat Robertson and other brain washers (Oh boy, what an act they put on!) with an 1-800 number to turn in your pledges. God it seems is alive and well inside these boxes.  >carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for  >ourselves.