waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.2.09.51.49.1993.11841@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you wrote:  > The genius of science is that it discovered that enormous progress  > in knowledge could be made by isolating the study of physical  > interactions for the more general areas of study and proceeding > not by logical argument but by experiment. The scientific method > is hypothesize, attempt to disprove the hypothesis, if you fail,  > publish, if others fail to disprove your hypothesis, accept it > as a working theory and move on. This method is suitable only > for the study of objects without will, objects which do not > take an interest in the experiment.  Science does not progress via experimentation but by philosophising.  One aim of experiments is to investigate the validity of the hyptheses resulting from the models produced by this thinking process.  > The arrogance of science is the assumption many advocates of  > science make that the scientific method is the only method of > serious study, the only one leading to knowledge rather than > belief.   Science has one advantage of all other approaches to explaining the world. It is objective.  > Its further arrogance, is the assumption which arises > that, since science is the only valid method of thought, everything > which exists must be the sort of thing which the scientific  > method can study, and that if the scientific method cannot  > study it it either does not exist or cannot in any way be known.  Anything which affects the physical world can be studied.  For example, since we are part of the physical world, anything (including spirits) which affects our behaviour can be observed.  Science does not make any claims about the existence or non-existence of objects which do not affect the physical world.  > Since these asumptions about the nature of the world cannot > themselves be made the subject of experiment, it is bad science > to believe them, as well as arrogance, illogic, and just plain > sloppy thinking.  The purpose of science is to produce a model of the *physical* world.  The model must be able to explain all past observations and predict the outcome of future observations.  One of the aims of experiments is to carry out well defined observations which are objective.  Ideally scientist will except the model which best describes the world, and the model which realises on the minimal number of assumptions.  At the moment models which do not rely on the assumption of some *spiritual* world existing are equally powerful to ones which assume the assumption of a *spiritual* world.  As the non-spiritual models has fewer assumptions it should be the currently accepted models.  The scientific process never assumes that its present models are the correct ones, whereas many religions claim to represent the truth.  The arrogance of many theists is that they claim to represent the truth, this cannot be said of scientists.
In article <May.13.02.28.48.1993.1471@geneva.rutgers.edu> creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes: >In article <May.11.02.37.03.1993.28114@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes: > >   The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in >any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that >is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change >what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all >the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too >often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in >both.  Curiously enough, this subject has occupied a good bit of my prayer life recently.  God's experience of time is so completely different from our own, since He is both within and without it.  Using words like "foreknowledge" and "predestination" are semantically incorrect when it comes to describing God's perception of our action, because, for God, the beginning, living, and ending of our lives are all the same.  Sort of.  For God, there is no "before" when He did not know, so he could not have "foreknowledge" of our lives or a time when he could have "predestined" our actions.  In fact, since our understanding of things is so tied to our linear experience of time, I would say that it is impossible for us to understand completely how our free will interacts with God's control of the universe.
In article gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM writes:  >Over the years, I have met Christians who are not associated with >any local church and are not members of any local church. This is >an issue that may be very personal, but is important.  What does >the Bible say about this and how can we encourage our friends with >regard to this issue?  This brings up an interesting subject that has not been discussed much, and probably has not been studied much.  As some of you may be aware, I've posted a lot of articles lately on personality typing (of which the MBTI is a test vehicle).  To come up to speed, just read 'alt.psychology.personality' and/or ask for by personality type summary file.  One observation is that people have significantly different personalities (no question on this) which seem to be essentially in-born.  With respect to church attendance and participation, some people thrive on this, while other people have real difficulty with this because they prefer a more solitary and contemplative lifestyle - that is, they are de-energized if confronted with excessive closeness to outside activities and lots of people.  Of course this is measured by extroversion/introversion.  My impression is that many churches are totally blind to this fact, and create environments that 'scare away' many who are naturally introverted (there are many introverted characters in the Bible, btw).  I know, I am quite introverted in preference, and find the 'pressure' by many churches to participate, to meet together in large groups, etc., to be very uncomfortable.  Knowing what I know now, these churches have been overly influenced by highly extroverted people who thrive on this sort of thing. (BTW, there's nothing wrong with either extroversion or introversion, both preferences have their place in the Body).  Maybe I should define extrovert/introvert more carefully since these words are usually not used correctly in our culture.  The extrovert/introvert scale is a measure of how a person is energized.  The following is excerpted from my summary:  1.  Energizing - How a person is energized:          Extroversion (E)- Preference for drawing energy from the outside                           world of people, activities or things.          Introversion (I)- Preference for drawing energy from one's internal                           world of ideas, emotions, or impressions.   Hopefully this will elicit further discussion as to how churches can structure themselves to meet the real needs of the people who comprise the Body of Christ, instead of trying to change people's personalities to fit them into a particular framework.  I'm sure there are other aspects of how churches have not properly understood personality variances among their members to the detriment of all.  Jon Noring  --   Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.
In article <May.14.02.11.39.1993.25225@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes: | Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the celebration  | of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians  I have no problem with the idea that catechumens be dismissed before the Eucharist.  They were not considered qualified to participate.  | were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered | too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous | for the individual Christian who might be identified.  Does the dismissal in the early church mean that the eucharist was a secret?  I mean, was it:  	you don't have to stay; from now on, only the membership can 	participate; you really don't have to hang around; yes, I know 	you're obliged to keep up attendance to qualify, but now is an 	exception, okay?  or was it:  	you may not stay; what happens next is secret  When we have had reason to conduct business meetings after church, we've made it clear that only members can vote.  But we've always been happy for non-members to stay and observe.  Do you have evidence for intentional secrecy?  (Other than rumours, which will always happen when you have an underclass doing things not approved of by those in power?)
[Someone asked about Biblical support for the image of Satan as a fallen angel.  Rev 12:7-9 and Enoch have been cited.  --clh]  There is also a verse in Luke(?) that says He[Jesus] saw Satan fall from Heaven.  It's something like that.  I don't have my Bible in front of me or I would quote it directly, but it's a pretty obvious reference to Satan's expulsion.  Justin
mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   ) writes:  >I'd like to share my thoughts on this topic of "arrogance of >Christians" and look forward to any responses.  In my >encounters with Christians, I find myself dismayed by their >belief that their faith is total truth.  According to them, >their beliefs come from the Bible and the bible is the word of >God and God is truth - thus they know the truth.  This stance >makes it difficult to discuss other faiths with them and my own >hesitations about Christianity because they see no other way. >Their way is the 'truth.'  >But I see their faith arising from a willful choice to believe >a particular way.  That choice is part faith and part reason, >but it seems to me a choice.    >[I'm sort of mystified about how a Christian might respond to this.]    I'll start with a parable.     A Christian woman hires a carpenter to build her a birdhouse.  When he comes over, they begin talking about religion.  "So you believe that you understand God?" he asks.  "Yes, I do," she replies.  "Then have him build you the  birdhouse."
In article <Apr.14.03.07.58.1993.5438@athos.rutgers.edu>, mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes: > In article <Apr.13.00.09.02.1993.28445@athos.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >>[Any former atheists converted by argument?} >>This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are >>any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent. >>when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone >>"knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even >>the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is >>often indistinguishable from a poor one. >  > The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of > soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as > Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis.  I haven't followed whatever discussion there may have been on these people, but I feel that C. S. Lewis is an excellent apologist and I see no reason for embarrassment.  If you think that errors and flawed arguments are a reason for dismissing a thinker, you must dismiss nearly every thinker from Descartes to Kant; any philosophy course will introduce you to their weaknesses.       The above also expresses a rather odd sense > of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were > mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people > today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the > cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in > the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically > accepting what they were told.  I said nothing about "the masses."  However comparing "the masses" in our day and in Aquinas' day really *is* odd.  Read Ortega y Gasset on this.  I'm talking about the familiar experience of arguing all night and winning on logic and evidence, only to discover your opponent to be unaware, even intuitively, of things like entailment (let alone pragmatics).  (I am assuming that both parties are college graduates or better...)  Myself, I don't bother any more.  Ken
jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd) writes:  >Finally: >There is no proof of the resurrection of Christ, except in our spirits >communion with his, and the Father's.  It is a matter of FAITH, belief >without logical proof.  Incedently one of the largest stumbling blocks for >rational western man, myself included. >I hope that this is taken in the spirit it was intended and not as a  >rejection of the resurrection's occurance.  I beleive, but I wanted to point  >out the weakness of logical proofs.  Terms are being used in a loaded way here.  "Logical proof" is an extremely messy thing to apply to real life. If you think otherwise, try to construct a proof that yesterday happened. Obviously it did; anyone old enough to be reading this was there for it and remembers that it happened. But *proof*? A proof starts with axioms and goes somewhere. You need axioms to talk about logical proof. You can say that you remember yesterday, and that you take as axiom that anything you clearly remember happened. I could counterclaim that you hallucinated the whole thing.  To talk about proofs of historical events, you have to relax the terms a bit. You can show evidences, not proofs. Evidences of the resurrected Jesus exist. Proofs do not.
Years ago I grabbed the following from the net - maybe from this newsgroup.  Does anyone know of a source for whether this is an accurate quote?   Thanks!  Bartletts leaves out the homosexual lines, but they were one of the groups the Nazis tried to exterminate. === In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual. Then they came for the catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me --- but by that time there was no one left to speak up.
In article <May.9.05.38.52.1993.27378@athos.rutgers.edu> our moderator comments :  >Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and >Antiochenes.  It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable >to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes.  I agree >that there were extremes that were heretical.  However in the course >of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got >rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was >not understood or even was mispresented.  And some seem not to have >jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine.  There are 							     ^^^^^^^^^ >groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps.  This  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians.  There are also >a remaining Nestorians.  Like some of the current so-called >monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called >Nestorians are not heretical either.  They sheltered Nestorius from >what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his >heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of >the Antiochene tradition. > >--clh]  There is a BIG difference between the status of what you refer to as Alexandrians (actually, this includes all Oriental Orthodox Churches and not only Copts) and that of Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox Churches never even "shelter" Eutyches (the advocator of Monophysitism) but on the contrary, it condemned (and still does condemn) him and his heresy. That is why the Eastren (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church held talks with the Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) that started 30 years ago and still continueing till today, but they have converged on many issues the most imporatant of which is Christology (I have more  details of the inter-Orthodox dialogue, in case anyone is interested). So I do not see how the "Alexandrians" and the Nestorians are in a similar position.  Peace,
In article <May.2.09.51.04.1993.11807@geneva.rutgers.edu> gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King) writes: >When the Protestant reformers opposed and subsequently separated from the   >Church of Rome, the battle cry of the new protesting religion was "The   >Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible". Underlying that cry   >was a theory that if people could read the Bible for themselves in their   >native tongue they would discover the truth about God and His purpose.   >They would shed their old errors and be united by a common faith.     This idea, that the Reformers somehow were the first to bring the Bible to the people in their own language, is a myth.  Many vernacular translations of the Bible existed long before the Reformation.  The Vulgate Bible, which is still the official version of the Bible for the Catholic Church, was itself a translation in the common (i.e. vulgar == vulgate) tongue of its day, Latin, and had existed for about a millenium before the Reformation.     It might also be noted that the printing press was not even invented until the same century as that in which the Reformation occurred.
In article <Apr.10.05.31.34.1993.14365@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:   > >My guess is that the "Lazarus, come out!" was also for the sake of the >crowd.   I read somewhere, I think in Morton Smith's _Jesus the Magician_, that old Lazarus wasn't dead, but going in the tomb was part of an initiation rite for a magi-cult, of which Jesus was also a part.   It appears that a 3-day stay was normal.   I wonder .... ?
In article <Apr.12.03.45.11.1993.18872@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes: > >This verse also makes me think of the kind of husband who decides what  >is God's will for his family without consulting his wife.  God reveals  >His will to both the husband and the wife.  There needs to be some  >degree of mutuality in decision making.  Even those whose understanding  >of the Bible leads to a belief in an authoritarian headship of the  >husband need to incorporate this in order to have a functional family.   >One way to look at it is that God speaks to the wife through the husband  >and to the husband through the wife. > > >Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org  I agree.  God makes the husband the head of the house.  But he surely can't do it alone.  He needs the help of his beloved wife whom the Lord gave him.  At least that's how it is in my house.  I thank God for the beautiful woman He has brought into my life.  I couldn't lead without the help of my wonderful wife.
In article <Apr.10.05.33.44.1993.14422@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: > >In a short poem ("God in His mercy made / the fixed pains of Hell"), >C. S. Lewis expresses an idea that I'm sure was current among others, >but I haven't be able to find its source: > >that even Hell is an expression of mercy, because God limits the amount >of separation from Him, and hence the amount of agony, that one can >achieve. >  I have also heard it called an expression of mercy, because Heaven would be far more agonizing for those who had rejected God.
I responded to a post last week and it carried somewhat of a hostile tone for which I am apologizing for. It is not my intent to  create contriversy or to piss people  off. To those who I offend, I'm sorry
I am going to stop reading the homosexuality posts, at least for a   while, because of the repeated seemingly personal attacks on me via   post/e-mail(mainly e-mail).  If anyone has a specific comment,   suggestion, and/or note that does not contain any name calling, etc.   that they would like for me to read, send it to me via e-mail.  I   would like a copy of file mentioned by the moderator ragarding the   exergetical issue of it.  I attempted to get it via ftp but was   unable.
The Sophomore           (Romans 1:22)  The sophomore says, ``What is truth?'' and turns to bask in the admiration of his peers.  How modern how daring how liberating How modern how daring how liberating they chant  The sophomore, being American Doesn't know That his ``question''     modern        skeptical            cynical  Was asked before, by a     modern        skeptical            cynical    urbane cosmopolitan  Politician (appointed not elected) Who happened to live two thousand years ago.  Like many politicians he cared      Less about ideals          than results      Less about ends          than means      Less about anything          than keeping his job               (and his head).  We might call him A bit brutal Though `firm' would be kinder (And no doubt Stalin, who let nobody go, laughed at his laxness) He didn't like his job; perhaps he no longer hoped for better (Nor feared worse, except regarding his head).  And when these wily Jews With their heads-I-win, tails-you-lose      conundrums Brought forth their madman, His first impulse was to play the Roman: ``I find nothing wrong with him,   See to it yourselves.''  But when they mentioned `King' and `Caesar' His heart froze.  If he killed their madman     He'd start a riot          and lose his job              (and his head)  If he saved the King of the Jews     He'd piss off Caesar          and lose his job              (and his head)  And when his wife told him to have    Nothing to do with the righteous lout She didn't tell him anything    He hadn't already figured out.  So he punted.  ``Not my jurisdiction!  Take him to see Herod!'' (who just happened to be in town....)  Herod appreciated the courtesy But wasn't worried         And sent the sharp-tongued fool      (Who suddenly didn't have much to say,     funny how people lose it under pressure....)   back In the attire proper   to his Royal State.  His ass is covered---if Herod has no problem, Caesar certainly won't.  The fool can be king of whatever world he wants as long as it's not Caesar's.  ``I'm letting him go,'' he said with a shout. (Looks like he'll last this one out....)  The crowd's reaction puzzled him.   They really wanted him dead. They didn't want the King of the Jews,   They wanted Barabbas instead (And, as Josephus records, they got him)  Oh well, he thought, They all look the same to me. And we'll get Barabbas next time.  And if I can get them to say    ``We have no king but Caesar!''    By killing a madman, Hell, I'll kill ten a day.  And then Pilate had his fun   A little joke     Short       To the point         Trilingual  And all this Went as it always does When someone gets caught In the gears of government  And there's a scientific explanation      (no doubt) For the superstitious rumors      (persisting to this day) That it didn't all end With a tomb and a Roman squadron on guard.  Our sophomore doesn't know about this He doesn't recognize his kindred spirit (Or truth either, as he admits).  I guess we haven't learned much in two thousand years.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.  Colossians 3:16  A reminder: These verses are from the New International Version. As with any translation, faithfulness to the original Hebrew and Greek may vary from time to time. If a verse sounds a little off occasionally, compare it with another translation or with the original texts, if you are able to do so.