waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.14.03.07.55.1993.5435@athos.rutgers.edu> wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes: >In article <Apr.11.01.02.39.1993.17790@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) 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,  You assume this because you believe in a designing creator, and you observe our ability to procreate...  >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?  .... But then you observe our ability to modify fertility through intelligence & experiment, and draw no similar conclusions about God designing us for scientific inquiry & the use of the technology that it produces.  How is it that one ability is "obviously from God", and the other not?  >	I cannot draw a solid line regarding where I >would approve of Scientific study, and where I would not, >but I will say this:  Before one experiments with the >universe to find out all its secrets, one should ask >why they want this knowledge.  I want to know the truth, and hold the Truth as the most basic of all ethical values, because correct moral judgement relies on knowing the truth, not vice versa. Moralities that assert that assent to a belief is a moral choice, and not compelled by evidence inevitably cut off the limb they sit upon. Falsification of evidence, conscious and unconscious, follows corrupting both the intellect and the heart.  >I will say that each person should pray for guidance >when trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and >should cease their unravelling if they have reason to  >believe their search is displeasing to God. > >			---Malcusco  If there is a God, he has nothing to fear from truth. As to imaginary gods and there followers: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Ken, Then what happens when you die? Why are you here? What is the purpose of Your life, do you think it's  just by chance you're in the family you are in and have the friends you have? Why do you think your searching?  To fill the void that exists in your life.  Who do you think can fill that void
Concerning Christians praying for coporate forgiveness of national sins,  Michael Covington claims the following of C.S. Lewis:  > C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II, > when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance" > for the horrors (sins???) of World War II. > -- > :-  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 :  ** *** ** <><  I was surprised when I heard this same kind of remark from a fellow grad.  student I know, especially since he had seminary training.  I have read the  same essay and do not find Lewis making any such claim.  Rather, Lewis is  condemning the use of such coporate prayer efforts as platforms to make  political jabs at opponents, feigned as confessions of guilt (ie., Lord please  forgive us for allowing "insert political issue/idea/platform" to exist in our country, it is wrong and we ask your forgiveness.).  I would be interested in knowing what part of the essay you feel condemns national repentance (please quote).
Hi,  I don't know much about Bible. Could you tell me the relations of Christians with non-Christians in Bible? How should be The relations of christian nations with each other and the relations of Christian nations with other nations who are not Christians?  The other question is about the concept of religion in Bible. Does the religion of God include and necessitate any law to be extracted from Bible or is the religion only a belief and nothing to do with the government sides? If for example, any government or a nation is one of the wrongdoings according to Bible, how should they be treated?   Is there any statement in Bible saying that Bible is a guide for every aspects of life?    Thank you.
In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes: > >I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a >lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?  Dave - you might like to read a book by Florence Bulle "God Wants You Rich & Other Enticing Doctrines", which discusses OOBEs in one of her chapters.  In the Bible we have examples of men caught up in the Spirit (eg Ezekiel, Paul). I believe that also this experience is counterfeited by Satan - so that for example yoga and other eastern medatitive techniques can be used to induce the soul to leave the body and float off. Someone tried to sell me a book in Los Angeles airport entitled "Easy Journeys to Other Planets" which uses such techniques.  The occultic trance of a medium sometimes involves such body departure - the book "The Challanging Counterfeit", about a former medium who gets saved, tells how the author, on his last trance, was attacked by evil spirits who tried to kill him while returning to his body at the end of the seance because of his interest in Christianity and how he was supernaturally protected by the Lord.  There may be some similarities in mind-altering drugs and the phenomena of 'tripping'.  As regards the connection between body and soul, there is an interesting verse in Ecclesiastes. In a passage talking about old age, the preacher writes "Then man goes to his eternal home and mourners go about the streets. Remember Him--before the silver cord is severed." (12.5-6) My understanding of this silver cord is that it is something that attaches body and soul in a manner somewhat similar to an umbilical cord or an astronaut's air-line to his spaceship. When a person goes out of body this silver cord still attaches the soul whereever it goes - and is vulnerable to being broken: astral projection can be dangerous! Bulle, I think, reports a case of a yogi off on an OOBE who was found dead in his apartment, with no apparent external cause.
James Sledd asks:   1. What is the nature of eternal life?  2. How can we as mortals locked into space-time conceive of it?  2a. If the best we can do is metaphor/analogy, then what is the  best metaphor?  C S Lewis's essay THE WEIGHT OF GLORY deals with this question. I recommend it enthusiastically. You might also read the chapter on "Heaven" in his book THE PROBLEM OF PAIN. He gives a fictional treatment in his book THE GREAT DIVORCE. I have found all of these very helpful.  You might also be helped by the treatment in Dante's DIVINE COMEDY. Heaven occupies the last third of the poem, but I cannot imagine reading it other than from the beginning. I urge you to use the translation by Dorothy L Sayers, available from Penguin Paperbacks.
Here is another way of looking at it.  When we die we are released from the arc of time, and able to comprehend our lives in toto.  To visit each moment in time sequentially or all at once, but not able to alter the actions thoughts or feelings we had/have/will have in this  life.  From that perspective, I posit that all will have direct knowledge of God, and be able to recognize at each moment of time wether we were doing what we ought.  That the experience of having lived a life far from God will be an eternal torment.  That  having lived a life of grace, will be an eternal joy.  That the  resurrection of the body comes not from any physical reconstitution of our present forms, but knowledge of our present forms by our fully cognizant souls.  As an Aside:  If we were to be restricted for all time to our present form, would you opt for immortality?  James Sledd
> [Again, in the normal Protestant interpretation, Sunday is not a law, > and worshipping on another day is not a sin.  Churches are free to > decide on the day they will meet, just as they are free to decide on > the hour.  It would not be a sin to worship on some other day, but if > you belong to a church that worships on Sunday and you show up on > Monday, you will probably worship alone...  --clh]  I totally agree with that sentiment.  But why do you have to go further and advocate violating what God has set up?  That is the question which you have not answered from Scripture.  You can worship on every day, as long as you work.  But God says the Sabbath is all mine.
I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last few years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how to  do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we  present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.  Lately, I think the proportion of participation has fallen, and the proportion of sitting there and watching, or listening, or generally being told what to do (which is necessary because no one knows what's happening next) is growing. Example.  Last Sunday (Palm Sunday) we went to the local church.  Usually on Palm Sunday, the congregation participates in reading the Passion, taking the role of the mob.  The theology behind this seems profound--when we say "Crucify him" we mean it.  We did it, and if He came back today we'd do it again.  It always gives me chills.  But last week we were "invited" to sit during the Gospel (=Passion) and _listen_.  Besides the Orwellian "invitation",  I was really saddened to have my (and our) little role taken away.  This seems typical of a shift of participation away from the people, and toward the musicians, readers, and so on.  New things are introduced in the course of the liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about to be done.  In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay "experts", but that may not be just.  I do think that a liturgy committee has a bias toward doing something rather than nothing--that's just a fact of bureaucratic life--even though a simpler liturgy may in fact make it easier for people to be aware of the Lord's presence.  So we've been wondering--are we the oddballs, or is the quality of the Mass going down?  I don't mean that facetiously.  We go to Mass every Thursday or Friday and are reminded of the power of a very simple liturgy to make us aware  of God's presence.  But as far as the obligatory Sunday Masses...maybe I should  just offer it up :)  Has anyone else noticed declining congregational participation in Catholic Masses lately?
Our moderator writes:  > I believe one could take a view like this even while accepting the > views Paul expressed in Rom 1.  One may believe that homosexuality is > not what God intended, that it occured as a result of sin, but still > conclude that at times we have to live with it.  Note that in the > creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This > doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.  Please note that God commanded Adam to work before the fall:  "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work  it and take care of it." (Gen 2:15, NIV).    Work was God's design from the beginning.  --  Ken
In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu> mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes: >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.  Please, leave heaven out of it.  For his own sake, I pray that Dan does take it literally because that's how God intended it to be taken.  Dan, your view of many groups appears correct from my point of view. However, I have found a group which is truly meeting requirements laid down by the Bible on what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.  I have no clue where wwc is, but please mail me.  I'd really like to get you in touch with them.  > >>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  > [insert deletion of ranting about other religions which obviously has gone off-center of Dan's original context]  Dan, I'm familiar with this one.  You've got a point, though.  There are some who don't want to turn over everything and be a disciple, some have no clue about it because they've not been taught, some have done exactly that and turned over everything to follow Jesus, some are blocked by difficult doctrine taught by uncaring Pharisees and teachers of the law. However, Jesus pointed out what it takes to follow him and to be his disciple in Luke 9:23-26 and Luke 14:25-33.  My question is:  why do people ignore the command and treat it as optional?  I certainly don't have an answer to this.  [insert deletion]  >	Parting Question: >		Would you have become a Christian if you had not >been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about >any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim >you are brain washed.  My parents had nothing to do with it.  God had and has everything to do with it.  As for these attacking responses, I must say that I disagree with your tone and what appears to be some very judgmental statements (possibly to the point of slander) when talking about people, not what they do.  Please, if you have a response, state it instead of flying off the handle on some discourse which may have nothing truly to do with what is being discussed.  I'm sure both Dan and I would have a much happier time with your responses.
In article <Apr.21.03.26.18.1993.1352@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes: >following Christ.  From Captialist who have polluted the enviorment in strict >obedience to the Gensis command to subdue the earth, to Nazi's who have >"justly" punished the Jews for the killing Christ  It is funny how this one little quote from Genesis is treated by certain anti-Christians as if Christians have been given a firm command to destroy the earth. You could prove almost anything by taking little quotes out of context from the Bible - it's a big book, you know. I doubt you could find a single case of a anti-ecological action taking place specifically because teh perpetrator was motivated by a Christian belief.  As for the Nazis, they were motivated by German Nationalism, not by Christianity. In fact they despised Christianity as a weak pacifist religion, and were much more keen on pagan glorification of strength and warfare. They killed the Jews because they were not Germans, not because they were "Christ-killers" - they were just as keen on killing the other non-German ethnic minority, the Romanies or Gypsies.
Well, it's that time of year again here at IU:  graduation. Unfortunately, this means that I am out of here, more than likely for good.  I cannot say if I'll be in here under another username or not, or even if I'll ever get back in here at all.  I am leaving this part of my ministry to another brother, John Right.  So, have fun and remember that flaming can be considered slander.
Some thoughts:  [A. On the non-pacifist side:]  (1) Killing to defend the innocent may be, if anything, _more_ justifiable than killing in self-defense.  I can turn my _own_ other cheek, but I have no right to turn someone else's.  (2) It seems to me that if Jesus had meant to teach pacifism, He would have made His position more explicit.  He didn't tell the centurion to leave the army, for instance; and the NT is full of military metaphors.  [B. On the pacifist side:]  (1) Apparently many early Christians refused to fight in the Roman army, or stated that one should refuse if given a choice.  But it's not clear whether they were objecting to war _per se_, or objecting to Roman policies.  (2) In modern warfare, it seems to be impossible to direct attacks only at combatants.  Bombing, both conventional and nuclear, kills lots of civilians.  (3) It's hard to tell whether any _particular_ war is justified at the time. Often it takes decades for the requisite information to become available to the general public.  Please, NO EMAIL REPLIES -- this is meant as a contribution to a public discussion, and anyone wanting to reply should also reply publicly.
In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes: > The one single historic event that has had the biggest impact on the > world over the centuries is the resurrection of Jesus.  At the same > time, it is one of the most hotly contested topics.... >  > Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead?  Since the eyewitnesses > are no longer living, we have only their written accounts. ... > ...  Because of the magnitude of significance > involved here, either the resurrection is the greatest event in the > history of man or the greatest deception played on man. > [massive amounts of data deleted]  John,   While I will not take the time to rebut you point by point, I will suggest three current works which I think will be helpful in your quest to answer this question.  John Dominic Crossan (Professor of Religion at De Paul Univ)- _The Cross That Spoke_ Harper and Row Pub. 1988, Also his latest work  _The Historical Jesus - The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant_ Harper and Row Pub. 1991,  Also two works of Burton Mack (Professor of New Testament at the Claremont Graduate School) _A Myth of Innocence_ Fortress Press 1988, And his latest book _The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins_ Harper and Row, 1992.  You might start with Mack's book on Q and then  examine the others afterward.  However I think that once you do that you will see that your "evidence" is not as sturdy as you'd like.  Most of the tired arguements you stated, assume eyewitness accounts, such is not the case. But Anyway look at Mack and Crossan and then get back to us.
In article <May.11.02.38.37.1993.28288@athos.rutgers.edu> KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet writes: > >Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation >among Christian thinkers?  What were his views, and how did he relate them >to the Christian scriptures?  He appears to have believed that.  He had a view which was condemned by conciliar action, which is often taken to be condemnation of the idea of reincarnation. What was actually condemned was the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul before birth.  Similar, but not exactly the same thing.    Larry Overacker (ll@shell.com) --
but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm."  Proverbs 1:33
I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but  definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus  as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew, buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be  lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.
Paul Hudson Jr (hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu) wrote: > In article <May.7.01.09.33.1993.14542@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:  >>in history seems to imply some pretty serious sin. The one of the  >>pastors in the church I attend, Christchurch City Elim, considers  >>that a prophesy of a natural disaster as a "judgement from the Lord"  >>is a clear sign that the "prophesy" is not from the Lord.  > >I would like to see his reasoning behind this.  You may have gotten   If I get a chance I will ask them this weekend.  >"burned" by natural disaster prophecies down there, but that >does not mean that every natural disaster/judgement prophecy is >false.  Take a quick look at the book of Jeremiah and it is obvious                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >that judgement prophecies can be valid.  here in the US, it seems like >we might have more of a problem with positive prophecies, though I >am sure there may be a few people who are too into judgement.  The words I have underlined are at the heart of the problem. A "quick look" doesn't do justice to the depth of the book of Jeremiah. Having studied the Jeremiah/Ezekial period solidly for over a year at one stage of my life, I have to say that there is a great deal of underlying theological meaning in the judgement prophesies. Let me make one point. The clash between Jeremiah and the "false prophets" was primarily in the theological realm. The "false prophets" understood their relatioship to God to be based on the covenant that the Lord made with David. It is possible to trace within the pages of the Old Testament who this covenant, which was initially conditional on the continued obedience of David's descendants, came to be viewed as an unconditional promise on the part of the Lord to keep a descendant of David's upon the throne and to never allow Jerusalem to subjegated by any foreign power. Jeremiah was not a Judahite prophet. He was from Anathoth, across the border in what had formerly been Israelite territory. When he came to prophesy, he came from the theological background of the covenant the Lord had made with Israel through Moses. The northern Kingdom had rejected the Davidic covenant after the death of Solomon. His theology clashed with the theology of the local prophets. It was out of a very deep understanding of the Mosaic covenant and an actute awareness of international events that Jeremiah spoke his prophesies. The "judgement prophesies" were deeply loaded with theological meaning.  In my opinion, both the Portland earthquake prophesy and the David Wilkerson "New York will burn" prophesy are froth and bubble compared to the majestic theological depths of the Jeremiah prophesies.  --                                                                      ___ Bill Rea                                                            (o o) -------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
I am curious if anyone in net-land has spent any time at any of the L'Abri houses throughout the world and what the experience was like, how it affected you, etc.  Especially interesting would be experiences at the original L'Abri in Switzerland and personal interactions with Francis and/or Edith Schaeffer.