waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.17.01.11.16.1993.2265@geneva.rutgers.edu> jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson (jimt II)) writes: >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...  Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm afraid your friendship is in danger.   Perhaps you should examine in yourself why as such a good friend, you  are unwilling to accept this imortant part of your friends life?  Why  do you call into question his faith?  Your friend has changed, he has  found something that fills a need in his life.  You need to decide if  you are still his friend, whether you can accommodate his new life.   It sounds as if you are criticizing him for a fundamental belief in  the Bible, yet you are quick to reveal that your fundamental belief  that it is superstition.  Perhaps if he knew you at least took him  seriously, that you at least took an interest in the light he has found,  that you at least tried to understand what has become a special part of  his life, you could together decide to become fundamentalists, respect  each others differences and remain friends, or part ways.  Maybe even if  you stuck it out with him, you could help him to un-convert.  Of course,  if you go in with that attitude he will surely see through your intentions  and begin to resent you.  I happen to be a person very tolerant of fundamentalists, because I know that the idea of a simple black and white approach to life is appealing. I don't happen to share the beliefs of fundamentalists, but I am not offended by their prosyletizing.  I had a few good conversations with some Witnesses who came to my door.  I didn't switch my beliefs, but for those at home who maybe need a friendly face to invite them somewhere, the Witnesses provide a wonderful service.  You may have been conditioned to believe that religion is unimportant and witnessing is obnoxious, but why?  Are you afraid you might be converted and become one of them, that you will be swept up in fundamentalism, that you will become a weirdo. Friendship's a two-way street.  You must respect your friend, ALL of him, including his beliefs, if you want the friendship to continue.
Please excuse the interruption.   I am seeking pro-life activists to fill out a 13-page questionnaire on attitutes, opinions, and activities.  If you would be willing to participate in this research, please email me privately at KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET.  All replies and questionnaires will be made anonymous prior to printout and will be kept confidential.   Thank you very much for your help.   --Kerry at Purdue
poram@ihlpb.att.com writes:    On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.    To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:    1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and    anachronisms.    2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices    which are at variance with sacred Scripture.    3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of    subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.    4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine    Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and    poetic and religious feeling.  First, to point out the obvious: While #4 would clearly be a highly subjective issue, one would be hard pressed to point to another book of the OT (or for that matter the NT) that doesn't, on some issues, in some way, fail one or more of the first three of these tests.  Second, one factor the Deuterocanonicals share is the lateness of their composition.  I don't recall the exact dating of all of the books, but most --if not all-- were written after the latest of the canonical books (i.e. Daniel).  Furthermore, while the Deuterocanonical may or may not have been originally written in Greek, they are clearly deeply _Hellenistic_ in nature.  Both of these features probably figured heavily in the rejection of these books from the various canons.  These may not be strict and uniformly applicable criteria by which to judge the canonicity of these books, but, as these discussions have shown, I think the one thing we can see is that there _are_ no purely objective standards for determining canonicity.
Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno ) writes:  >Joseph H. Buehler writes:  >>This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since >>both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot >>enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they >>cannot enter into Heaven.  >Are you saying that baptism has nothing to do with asking Jesus to come into >your heart and accepting him as your savior, but is just a ritual that we >must go through to enable us to enter Heaven?   	My feeling on baptism is this:  parents baptize their baby so that the 	baby has the sanctifying grace of baptism (and thus removal of original 	sin) on its soul in the event of an unexpected death. 	 	That is, the parents speak on behalf of the child which is too young 	to speak on its own.  This should not surprise anyone:  don't parents 	*always* do what they believe is the best for their baby?  Why would 	that apply to the baby's physical needs only but not his/her spiritual 	needs to have God's grace? 	 	The purpose of confirmation is for the baby (now young adult) to  	decide to re-affirm for himself/herself the promises that his/her 	parents made at baptism.  That is where accepting Jesus into your 	heart comes in.  In baptism, the parents ask Jesus to come into their 	baby's heart; at confirmation the child repeats that request  	independently.
Biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception:  1) "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  2) "He who commits sin is of the devil ..."     -1 John 3.8  3) "Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee ..."     -Luke 1.28     From the above, we prove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.    First, God has given the proto-evangel in Genesis 3.15, which is the first promise of a savior, who will redeem mankind from the wiles of Satan. "[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth because there is no truth in him." John 8.44.  Now the proto-evangel promises several things, enmity between Satan and "the woman", and enmity between Satan and "her seed."  Now the woman is both Eve (who is the immediate point of reference) and Mary, the second Eve.  "Her seed" is Jesus Christ, and He is also at enmity with Satan in the same way as Mary is said to be at enmity with Satan.  Thus, knowing as we do that Jesus Christ is sinless (Hebrews 7.26), we can conclude that Mary is also sinless because if she wasn't she would 1) not be at enmity with the devil, as 1 John 3.8 tells us, and 2) the relation of her sinlessness to Christ's sinlessness would be called into question, as would God's veracity.  For God promised an enmity between Mary and the serpent, and it is not possible for God to lie or be decieved.     Second, we have the Angelic Greeting where Mary is called by the Archangle Gabriel "full of grace."  As I pointed out above this is from the Greek word "Kecharitomene" which means not just full of grace, but a plenitude or perfection of grace.  The sense of it is best grasped by the footnote to the Jerusalem Bible, "Hail you who have been and reamin filled with grace."  But that is a little to long to say, so it is reduced to full of grace.  And as it says, "you who have been" Mary had always been filled with grace, from the moment of her conception, which was also the moment of her salvation, until her death some years later.     It must be admitted that it is possible that God could have done what the doctrine of the Immaclute Conception says He did do.  And if God could keep himself free from any contact with sin, through his Mother, He would have, and the Bible records this fact, to which the Fathers of the Church such as St. John Damascus, St. Augustine of Hippo , St. Ambrose and others are in complete agreement with, as is all of Christian tradition, and as is the infallible declaration of the Pope on the matter in "Ineffibilus Deus."
Have any of you read Harold Camping's book "1994?"? It's about biblical evidenc that points to September of 1994 as the probable time of Christ's second coming It's a very informative book and a must read for all Christians.  You can get i at your local bookstore for only $14.95.  Peace!
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu>, easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes: > Hello all, >      I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago > that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven > because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot > find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it > originate? >  Satan was one of God's highest ranking angels, like Uriel, Raphael, Michael, and Gabriel.  In fact, his name was Satanel.  He did challenge God's authority and got kicked out of heaven.  A lot of the mythology of Satan (he lost the -el suffix when he fell) comes from the Book of Enoch and is not found in the bible.  Read the Book of Enoch, available thru bookstores, or get the book called "Angels: an endangered species" (I think).
jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:  > My advice is this:  If you know someone that you have the hots for who is > NOT a Christian, befriend them and try to develop just a friendship with > them.  At the same time, witness and share the gospel with them, not so > that you can date them, but so that they can be saved.  Once they become a > Christian, then it is quite possible to let the relationship progress > beyond friendship.  However, if they don't accept Christ, you still have a > good friendship and you haven't wasted a lot of emotional energy and gotten > hurt.  While I agree with most of Jon says (I deleted those parts, of course), I  have serious reservations about this advice.  Maintaining a `just  friends' level of relationship is much easier said than done.  People  usually end up getting hurt.  This is especially likely to happen when  they start off with feelings of attraction.    When people feel attracted those feelings can cloud their judgement.   I've had the experience of going quickly from believing that I shouldn't  date non-Christians to believing that dating this man would be okay to  believing that premarital sex is fine when people really love each  other.  When the relationship ended my beliefs immediately returned to  their original state.    This is an especially extreme case because I was young and away from home  and fellowship.  I don't think it would work exactly this way for most  people.  However, it's important not to underestimate the power of  feelings of attraction.
In article <May.14.02.11.26.1993.25198@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes: >Michael Siemon writes:  >Protestants love to play up Jerome for all he is worth.   Yes, but no more than he is worth. :-).  Seriously: Jerome is merely (and grandly) another Christian witness, to be taken for what he can tell us.  He is one in the community of saints.  You seem to wish for a greater polarization and dichotomy between Catholic and Protestant thought than seems to me, from a historical perspective, to be valid. To be sure, Rome rejects (some significant aspects of) Protestant thought just as vehemently as Protestants reject (some significant aspects of) Roman thought.  Other than some peoplw who apparently try to embody the greatest extreme of this rejection, on either side, there is not quite so vast a gulf fixed as casual observers seem to assume.  Ecumenical consultations between Rome and the Lutherans, as well as  those between Rome and the Anglican communion (to which I belong) show very nearly complete convergence on understanding the basic theological issues -- the sticking points tend to be ecclesiology and church polity. Thus, for example, as you go on to say:  >                                                        They should >remeber that after the Decree of Pope St. Damsus I,  Many of us do not regard a papal decretal as having any necessary (as opposed to political) significance.  Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.  You misread me if you think that my communion, at least, "throws out" the deuterocanonical books.  Nor do I think you should overstress the sense in which the more Reformed may do so.  >Again, why must the Church of Jesus Christ adopt the canon of the >unbelieving Jews, drawn up in Jamnia in 90 AD, in countering the >Christian use of the Septuagint.                 ^^^^^  I seriously suggest you rethink what you are saying here.  It verges on, and could be taken as, anti-Semitic in the worst sense.  The "unbelieving" Jews were, according to what I understand as a Christian, the chosen people of God, and the recipients of His pre-Incarnational revelation. I think they have some say in the matter.  The Javneh meeting should not be over-interpreted.  A recent magisterial study titled _Mikra_ (I don't have more citation information on hand, sorry) produced primarily from the background of Christian (rather than specifically Jewish) scholarship suggests strongly that the Javneh meeting mostly resolved a lingering question, where in practice the canon had long been fixed on the basis of the scrolls that were kept in the Temple, and thereby "made the hands unclean" when used.  The list of "sacred books" that may be drawn up from Josephus and other pre-Yavneh sources correspond (plus or minus one book, if I rememeber the chapter correctly) to the current Jewish canon of Tanakh.  All of this is not to "throw out" the deuterocanonicals (what, by the way, is YOUR position about the books the Greeks accept and Rome does not? :-)) -- just to observe that the issue is complex and simply binary judgment does not do it justice. > >Andy Byler
I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our assumptions _about_ Mary."  In all the time I've been reading about Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural foundation.    I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt.  But the almalga- mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human desire.  Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew temptation, albeit without submitting to it.  I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some- how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or- dinary human being.    I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc., since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings.
In article <Apr.13.00.08.56.1993.28439@athos.rutgers.edu>, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:  > I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in > the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread. > There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New > Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.  Jim,  Please feel free to correct me and give me some texts.  As far as I can see the only text which vaugely relates to jewish evangelism is found in Mt. 23:15. However since this is found only in Mt. it cannot be dated before 90CE which makes it unusefull for understanding Second Temple Judaism.
In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu>, johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:  |> >Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must  |> >do something to ease the pain. |>  |> I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know |> who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business? |>   Was it Pascal, or maybe Descartes, who first used this figure of speech?  I seem to have some vague recollections from reading some of their essays, but I certainly couldn't say it was one of them for sure.
The Christian Reformed Church does not allow people to belong to lodges, the Reformed Church in America does.  The conservatives in both churches are very similar, as are the "progressives".  The RCA currently ordains women; the CRC is fighting over the issue.
In article <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu> jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski) writes: >I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?   Yes, he was.  He also played Jesus in "Jesus Christ Superstar" before  he became a Christian.  He played in Black Sabbath right after he first  got saved, but then left it.
On 12-Apr-93 in Environmentalism and paganism user Michael Covington@aisun3 writes: >I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_ >paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans. >  >Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions. >Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.  And what of those of us who already have answers to their questions without turning to christianity (or, in my case, any religion)?  Whay RIGHT do you have to presume to lecture me about what I should believe??
Sorry for bothering with a request almost irrelevant to anyone except for me: Could some kind soul provide me with the phone number of wycliffe center horsley green high wycomb bucks hp 14 3 xl I want to surprise a friend of mine staying there, but I don't have the number.  thanks a lot in advance  Gerhard
In article <May.13.02.28.01.1993.1436@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov   writes: >      In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private > interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians > lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away > because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go > away because I want them to be otherwise. >      In another sense, every statement is subject to private > interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and > expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently > well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an > inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best > judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance -- > it is just an inescapable fact.  Yes, there are these two senses of interpretation, and certainly our decision to accept Scripture as inspired ultimately rests on our own private opinion.  However, when reading Scripture, we have to remember that the Scriptures were given by God for our instruction, and that the interpretation that matters is the one God intended.  For example, if I decide that the fact that John the Baptist is Elijah teaches the doctrine of reincarnation, I am wrong because that is not the intended interpretation.  The prophets didn't make up this teaching; it came from God, and we must accept it as such.  This necessarily means that our private interpretations must take a back seat to the meaning God intended to convey.  Certainly we must rely on our best efforts to determine what this meaning is, but this very fact should make us recognize that our private interpretations cannot be automatically accepted as the infallible interpretation of God.  We need to test the spirits to see if they are from God.  When the Holy Spirit speaks, he says the same thing to all; he won't tell me that a passage means one thing and tell you it means another.  If the two of us come to conflicting conclusions, we can't both be completely right.  We know our interpretations are reliable only when the Church as a whole agrees on what Scripture means.  This is how we know the doctrines of the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, etc. infallibly.  These matters are not up for private interpretation.  This is the reason Peter goes on to talk about the deceptiveness of the false teachers.  They preferred their own private interpretation to the God-given teaching of the apostles.  It is through such private interpretation that the traditions of men, so soundly denounced in Scripture, are started.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:  > Biblical prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical.  For example, the virgin > prophecy of Isaiah also prophecied of Christ.  How does this apply to the  > book of Revelation in regard to the perterist view?  Much of the OT prophecies have a double application: to the Jewish captivity, and to the end of time.  But if Rev. is dated at AD96 its prophecies could not apply to the AD70 destructioin of Jerusalem.
Hi,    I'd like to subscribe to Leadership Magazine but wonder if there is one on disk instead of on paper. Having it on disk would save me retyping illustrations, etc into a word processor. It's just cut and paste.    If there are other good Christian magazines like Leadership on disk media, I'd appreciate any info.
In article <May.5.02.52.03.1993.28782@athos.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes: >Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in >the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important pronouncements >of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the  >feminine into the Godhead.     Jung may have said that, but he was in no way speaking for the Catholic Church.  The dogma of the Assumption in no way means Mary is considered to be God or part of "the Godhead."  Therefore it implies no such thing about the feminine in general.     Also Jung's statement makes it sound as though the dogma was announced "out of the blue."  This also is incorrect, as dogma is only the formulation of what has always been part of Tradition.  This dogma has always been believed, but was not formally defined until the Assumption was declared as an _ex cathedra_ statement.
In article <May.11.02.37.01.1993.28111@athos.rutgers.edu>, mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:|> feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our  [text deleted]  |> I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some- |> how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability |> to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or- |> dinary human being.   |>  [text deleted] |> -- |> paul marxhausen   Thank you very much Paul.  I have always been impressed by the very human-ness of Mary.  That God chose a woman, like me, to bring into this world the incarnation of Himself proves to me that this God is MY God. He reaches down from His perfection to touch me. Ah, the wonder of it all :-)
Hello, Brycen ?! I'm a Norwegian journalist student - and also a Christian. Thanks for your  testimony! But I want to ask you one question: What do you think of Heavy  Metal music after you became a Christian? You know there are Christian bands  like Barren Cross, Whitecross, Bloodgood and Stryper, that play that kind of  music. I like some of it, I feel like it sometimes. Of course I listen to  the lyrics too. I don't listen to any Christian band, but it's better than  listening to secular music anyway.  Hope you're still going strong - with Christ!!