waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
dhancock@teosinte.agron.missouri.edu (Denis Hancock) writes:    > [A very nice article on the DSS, which I thought answered    >  David Cruz-Uribe's original queries quite well]     Here are some books I have read recently that helped me not only    prepare for a 5 week series I taught in Sunday School, but greatly    increased my knowledge of the Qumran scrolls. [...]  One other recent book I would heartily recommend is Joseph Fitzmyer's _Response to 101 Questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (Paulist, 1992).  Fitzmyer is one of the preeminent modern NT scholars.  He was also one of the early workers on the DSS.  His book is written in a straightforward Q&A that allows it to serve as a source for a great wealth of clearly presented basic, up-to-the-moment information about the DSS.  (This book is something of a companion volume to Raymond Brown's _Response to 101 Questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls_.)  Nichael
Sorry for taking this off of Sharon's resp, but I'd also like to add some more verses to that and perhaps answer the second Q.  Verses:    1 Corinthians 6:9-10    Colossians 3:5-10  As for knowing when, that's a bit tricky.  People normally have consciences which warn them about it.  However, as in my case, a conscience can be hardened by sin's deceitfulness (Hebrews 3:12:13) so that the person has no idea (or doesn't care about it) that they are sinning.  Of course, there are those sins which we do when we don't know that they're sinful to begin with.  Those take searching and examining of Scripture to find out that they are sinful and then repent and change.  The best question to ask in every circumstance to judge sinful possibilities is:  "Would Jesus wholeheartedly do this at this point in time?"  I know, it sounds like a cop-out, but it truly is a stifling question.  Joe Fisher
In article <May.13.02.31.26.1993.1577@geneva.rutgers.edu> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes: >>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the >>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.  > It is >absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do* >raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human >adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant >than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you >are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the >world.  No.  It is very relevant.  Homosexual acts and acts of beastiality are topically aranged together in the law.  This is very important. Anyone who would want to say that this command against homosexuality deals with temple prostitution (and I think you would agree that there is no proof for this.)  If the Law reveals the character of God, and  is "holy, just, and good" as is written in the New Testament, then those who consider we who are against commiting homosexuals acts to be biggots have to address this passage of Scripture.    Why must we only discuss Scriptures that involve consensual human adult relationships?  Isn't that bordering on sophistry?  The point we are making is that God did not ordain certain kinds of sex acts. Not everyone who brings up these Scriptures is just trying to use and emotional argument that compares homosexuals to beastophiles and child molestors. The issue we are dealing with is that some sex acts are ungodly.    I do not have problem with a loving, nonlustful relationship with a member of the same sex.  I have them, and we all do.  The issue at hand is  the sinfulness having sex with members of the same sex, or lusting after. So other forbidden sex acts are a valid topic for conversation.   And the idea that these relationships may be  emotional  relationships between adult humans is red herring.  We all agree that it is okay  for adults to  have caring relationships with one another.
Here's how I talk to non-Christians who are complaining about Hell.  ME:	"Do you believe you're going to Heaven?" HIM:	"I don't believe in Heaven." ME:	"So are you going there?" HIM:	"If there was a heaven, I would." ME:	"But since there isn't a Heaven, you're not going there, are you?" HIM:	"No."    The point is that Heaven is based on faith--if you don't believe in heaven, there's no way you're going to be in it.   Of course, the next step is, "I don't believe in Hell either, so why will I be there?"  It seems to me that Hell is eternal death and seperation from God. Most atheists do believe that when they die they will die forever, and never see God--so they do, in fact, believe that they're going to Hell.   Hell doesn't have to be worse than earth to be Hell--because it's eternal,  and it's a lot worse than Heaven.  That's the only comparison that matters.
This is to let you know that the fourth issue of the Copt-Net Newsletter  has been issued. The highlights of this issue include:    1. Easter Greating: Christ is risen; Truly he is risen!  2. The Holy Family in Egypt (part 1)  3. Anba Abraam, the Friend of the Poor (part 4)  4. A review of the Coptic Encyclopedia  5. A new Dictionary of the Coptic Language   This Newsletter has been prepared by  members  of  Copt-Net,  a  forum where news, activities, and services of  the  Coptic Orthodox Churches and  Coptic communities outside Egypt are coordinated  and  exchanged. If you want your name to be included in the mailing  list, or have any   questions please contact Nabil Ayoub at <ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu>.
Mark Schnitzius writes:  >>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since >>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.   >  >This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings >die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail >and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?  One can feel physical pain by having a body, which, if you know the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, is what people will have after the great judgement.  "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."  - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  You will have both body and soul in hell - eventually.
Hello. Hoping to net some netters who are in the helping professions  (counseling, psychology, psychiatry, social work, therapy etc.) to network on some topics and consider the possibility of a sci.counseling.christian type newsgroup or list.  The integration of psychology and counseling and theology  is a subject of great debate and one of particular interest to me.  If you're out there, please lemme know.  Email me direct if you will so we can get to know one another off the news.
In article <Apr.19.05.13.28.1993.29224@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes: >Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those  >who love him, who are called according to his purpose.  > >Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will. > >We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on >Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that >matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  I've always taken Murphy's Law to be an exhortation to prudence, and an observation about the behavior of complex systems, rather than a denial of divine benevolence.
mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:  >One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the >temple rituals secret.    On of the attributes of being sacred in this case is that they should not be spoken of in a "common manner" or "trampled under feet" such as the Lords name is today.  The ceremonies are performed in the temple because the temple has been set aside as being as sacred/holy/uncommon place.  We believe that the  ceremonies can only be interpreted correctly when they are viewed with the right spirit- which in this case is in the temple.  So from our point of view, when they are brought out into the public, they are being trampled under feet, because of misinterpretations and mocking, and it is therefore offensive to us.  Please do not assume that because of my use of the words 'we' and 'our' that I'm an official spokesman for the LDS church.  I am merely stating what I believe is the general feeling among us.  Others feel free to disagree.
>4. Who exactly is "The Lord"?  "God" or Jesus Christ?  John 1:1 says (NKJV - the little green gideon someone forced on me one day) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was  God."  The Word refers to Jesus Christ so from this John declares that God and Jesus are one.  Therefore, "The Lord" refers to both.  Also, David in the Psalms refers to both God in heaven and the coming messiah as his Lord.  Once again this refers to God and Jesus.  >5. What is the definition of a "Truly religious" person? Should he/she not     swear/curse?  Does it say anything about this in the bible?  Some of the most "truly religious" people I've known have not been Christians and some of the greatest Christians I've known have been truly irreligious. However, to answer your question: The bible speaks of this in many places, A previous post to James is a good one.  Another is Psalm 15: "Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle?  Who may dwell in your holy hill?  He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart He who does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor does he take up a reproach against his friend; I whose eyes a vile person is despised, but he honors those who fear the Lord; he who swears to his own hurt and does not change; He who does not put out money at usury, nor does he take a bribe aginst the innocent.  He who does these things shall never be moved."  ------------------------------------------------------------ Rob Coffey                    "Indeed the safest road to  coffey@cptc1.neep.wisc.edu     Hell is the gradual one- the (if you send mail to cptc2     gentle slope, soft underfoot,  I'll never read it)           without sudden turnings,                                 without milestones, without                                signposts."  -- Screwtape
In article <May.7.01.08.52.1993.14488@athos.rutgers.edu> brh54@cas.org (Brooks Haderlie) writes:     searching out our deceased ancestors so that we can perform the    ordinances -- such as baptism, confirmation, and marriage for time and    eternity -- that are required for a person to obtain salvation through    Christ and to live with Him through the eternities. These are people    who may have not had the opportunity to know Christ in their lifetime,    so we are making it possible for Christ's saving grace (I know there    are thousands of interpretations of that phrase) to become fully    effective for them if they allow it to do so on the other side.   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)?  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Hammerslag (dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com)    "...there ain't nobody so bad that the Lord can't save 'em ain't         nobody so good they don't need God's love..." -- Mullins
In article <Apr.21.03.27.03.1993.1388@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes: >Rob Butera asks about a book called THE LOST YEARS OF JESUS, by >Elizabeth Clare Prophet.  > ...  >marriage, if I remember aright), base almost all their teachings on >messages they have allegedly received by telepathy from Tibet. I >should be surprised if the book you mention has any scholarly basis.  Actually, there was very little to the book.  First of all looking at the titles of her other books, I would personally consider her  to be engaged in a bizarre form of Christian-like mysticism heavily influenced by eastern philosphies (great titles like  _The_Astrology_of_the_4_Horsemen_).  However, other than the Chapter One into, there's nothing original, biased, or even new this book.  It is basically a collection of previously published works by those who claim that there exist Buddhist and Hindu stories that Christ visited India and China (he was known as Issa)  during the period from late teens to age 30.  Conclusion:  the book actually lets you come to your own view by presenting a summary of various published works and letters, all of which you could verify independently.  It includes refutations to such works as well.  Therefore, even if you think she is theologically warped, this  book is a nice reference summary for the interested.
>	2.  It is more likely than not that when St. John (or whomever) wrote >		the book of Revelation WHAT WAS THEN CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE was >		** NOT ** the same thing you and I are holding in our hands!  >		Revelation was almost certainly written durin the reign of  >	Domition (sp?), A.D. 80-96.  Thus it could be argues that we are all >	in sin if we accept 2 Peter as scripture, since it was "added" to the >	book after the composition of Revelation, when we are told to add  >	nothing more.  	Okay, I went back and looked:  sure enough, my hunch was right. 	 		2 Peter was most likely written between 100-120 A.D. 		 		Revelation was almost certainly written between 80-96 A.D. 		 		Odds are the gospel of John was written around 90 A.D. 		 		Best dates for Luke and Acts are around 80 A.D., maybe later. 		 	Again, this is from footnoted information in the New American Bible, 	the best translation I've come across in regards to giving complete 	historical information about each book. 						- Mike 						)
In <May.10.05.07.27.1993.3488@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:  >	That last paragraph just about killed me.  The Deuterocanonicals have >	ALWAYS been accepted as inspired scripture by the Catholic Church, >	which has existed much longer than any Protestant Church out there. >	It was Martin Luther who began hacking up the bible and deciding to >	REMOVE certain books--not the fact that the Catholic Church decided >	to add some much later--that is the reason for the difference between >	"Catholic" and "Protestant" bibles.    This is misleading, at best.  The question, really, has to do with the status of the Greek Septuagint versus Hebrew scripture.  And the issue predates the Reformation by quite a bit -- Jerome was negative about the "deuteroncanonicals" and in fact, even though he transalted them, he put them after the Hebrew canon (reordered from the Greek ordering to the Hebrew one.)  His translations of them were quick-and-dirty, also (he reports having done one of them in one day, and another overnight, just dictating his translation to an amanuensis.  That is to say, it is the Vulgate, and all of its massive importance in Western Christianity, along with the veneration of Jerome, which took the first steps in "reducing" these books from the status they had (and have) among the Greeks.  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.  I think that the emphasis on the Hebrew originals is sound, though it seems somewhat arbitrary to disallow on the face of it a translation as part of a collection whose principles of selection (in Hebrew or Greek) are confused or unknown and likely fraught with accident.  It also seems to play into a tendentious notion of the original languages being somehow "more inspired" -- as if magical, and conveying a message untranslatable -- than a translation, as if we could not hear God's word to the Jews in Greek (or German, or English, ...).  This tendency seems to have got a big boost in _sola scriptura_ Protestantism, even to the point of current "inerrancy" bizarreness, despite the more basic, underlying tendency of the Reformers to see that the texts SHOULD and COULD be translated.  If we can profit from an English rendering of Hebrew and Greek, there is surely little reason to keep Sirach, at least, out of our Bibles (and of course, Anglicans don't do so :-)).  For texts originally in Greek, it would seem more to be anti-Greek prejudice (notably, by the time the Hebrew canon is fully attested, including anti-Christian prejudice which led to the Jewish abandonment of the Septuagint) which is operative.  BTW: readers may enjoy some lectures of Bruce Metzger on the issues of translation of the Bible (including some of what I said about Jerome, above) in the current numbers of the journal _Bibliotheca Sacra_; two of four have been published so far.
In article <Apr.20.03.01.50.1993.3776@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jcj@tellabs.com (jcj) writes: > In article <Apr.16.23.15.09.1993.1823@geneva.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes: >>... >>I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is >>ever disproved. ... >  > Didn't Paul write that if the Resurrection is not true, we are the > biggest fools of all?  However, whether you believe in Christ or not, > His teachings (e.g. love your brotherman as yourself), even if only  > followed at a secular level, could do a great deal to alleviate some of  > the problems we see today in the world.  Even when I was a rabid atheist  > I couldn't deny that. >  > Jeff Johnson > jcj@tellabs.com  We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were 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 (as well as the other progroms), the innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing men destroyed by the inquistion.  The religious wars in Spain, France, England, etc.  Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the instructions therein, was unquestionable.  There is much to grieve.
I simply wish to thank Dave Mielke (dave@bnr.ca)  for sharing the tract concerning God's love.  It was most welcome to me and a great source of comfort.
Somewhere, someone told me that Satan was the angel in charge of music in heaven, and on top of that, he was the most beautiful of the angels.  Isn't it funny that these days how MTV has become the "bible" of music and beauty these days.  MTV controls what bands are popular, no matter how bad they are.  In fact, it is better to be politically correct - like U2, Madonna - than to have any musical talent.  Then of course, you have this television station that tells us all how to dress.  Think about it, who started the retro-fashion craze??  MTV and Madonna.  Gag.  Anyway, just food for thought.  It is really my own wierd theory.  If Revelation was to come true today, I think MTV would the "ever changing waters" (music and fashion world) that the beast would arise from, and Madonna will be the whore of Babylon, riding the beast and drinking the blood of the martyrs.  Hmmmm....great idea for a book/movie.....
In article <Apr.9.01.09.29.1993.16586@athos.rutgers.edu> jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:  >So we see that we are masters of this planet.  It IS ours to care for and >ours to look after.  We will be judged on how well we do this task. >C.)  We are not to be in the business of spreading lies.  What we tell >others we must be sure is true.  We should check out the information, >verify it with scientific fact and go from there. 			   ^^^^  Just what are these "scientific facts"?  I have never heard of such a thing. Science never proves or disproves any theory - history does.  -Tim   ______________________________________________________________________________ |				|				       	       | |       Timothy J. Brent        |   A man will come to know true happiness,    | |   BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu   |   only when he accepts that he is but a      | |=========$$$$==================|   small part of an infinite universe.	       | |       PURDUE UNIVERSITY       |			  	   -Spinoza    | | MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING |			 	 [paraphrased] | |_______________________________|______________________________________________|
Darin Johnson (djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu) wrote: : Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity? : Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex : completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others, : to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong, : etc?  If not, why not?  Heterosexuals abstain all the time. : (It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders : to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)  The difference is that straight members are given the choice of abstaining or not, and celibacy is recognized as a gift, given only to some.  Gays are told that, as a condition of acceptance, they _must_ be celibate.  I don't believe that God gives me a forced choice between having a relationship with God and expressing my heterosexuality (within the context of a faithful relationship).  Nor do I believe that God gives that forced choice to gays.  Sex or Christianity is a false dichotomy.  : To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII : starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is : this a myth).  Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are : Christian.  For my part, gay churches remind me of blacks starting their own churches either because they were not allowed at all in the white churches, or, at best, only with special restrictions that did not apply to white members.
(Larry L. Overacker) writes: > Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that >    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian? >  > My contention is that if you answer this question with "No. I would > not then remain a Christian" then you really are not one now.   > ...  I follow Christ because it's a great way > to LIVE life.  And I could care less what really happens after > I die.  I believe that there will be a resurrection, but that > won't have any effect on how I live THIS life.  ...  Ouch, this is a good question. To me, not existing is worse than existing no matter what, so I will modify this question to be: would I be a Christian if it made no eternal difference in my reward or punishment? I hope this is in the same spirit you want.  I personally am very goal oriented. It is hard for me to do things that do not achieve some goal. However, to relate this to sports,  only after I learned to not care about the score did I become a good basketball player. I had to learn to go all out no matter the situation. Perhaps this lesson is relevent. After all, only if I can give up my life can I keep it, only if I am humble can I achieve glory. Only if I concentrate on living my life now the best I can will I be afforded life eternal. I think you have illuminated the true meaning of "saved by faith."  But what is my answer? Right now I would remain a Christian. However, was that always my answer? That's the problem. Heaven and hell are good motivators at certain stages of maturity. And I admit there are certain times when perhaps I bite my tongue and put up with something in the hope of a better day, i.e. I mentally trade present happiness for future happiness. I hope the cynics and skeptics do not read more into that than appropriate, but I am trying to be honest.  (Scott A Mayo) writes: > Of course. But it is a pointless question, because you cannot know > beyond all doubt that hell does not exist, anymore than you can know > it does, short of taking Jesus's word for it. "What If" questions are > fun and entertaining, but probably fruitless.   I think these kinds of questions are extremely fruitful. I guess it depends on how one views knowledge and learning. By stripping ideas to simple, straightforward, opposing concepts we can determine levels of importance. By analyzing the theoretically  absurd we can gain a better understanding of the actually absurd.