waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Someone posted a list of x number of alleged Bible contradictions.  As Joslin said, most people do value quantity over quality.  Dave Butler posted some good quality alleged contradictions that are taking a long time to properly exegete.  If you want a good list (quantity) - _When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties_ by Dr. Norman Geisler deals with over 800 alleged contradictions.  Frank
In article <1993Apr21.182127.23528@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes: >> = "David R. Sacco" writes:  >>Some >>people even raised protests when we had a moment of silence for a class >>member who had tragically died, saying this implied endorsing religion.  >Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who >really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which >makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to >have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment >of silence"?  A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone* participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?  Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3) to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate is gone so that it's not disruptive later.  Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is utterly idiotic.
mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had >expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a >direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God >is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable. >Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to  >God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the >age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is >repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just >for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile >alike.  Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...  I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing.  How do you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?  Also, while we're at it:  1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable by death"?  Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing KINDness and LOVE?  2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of having made a mistake?  3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather than killing us immediately?  If so, is this eternal damnation an example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?  Just curious.
In article <C5rp8K.Kw2@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes: >Gordon Banks quoted and added... > >gb> In article <C53L1s.D61@acsu.buffalo.edu> >gb>  psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes: >gb> >gb> >The Mormon Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. That Jesus is God >gb> >the Father's first born spirit child. That Jesus was begotten on earth >gb> >through natural means, not by the Holy Ghost. That He sweat His blood >gb> >for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane. That His blood cannot >gb> >cleanse from all sin. That He is now among many millions of other >gb> >gods. That Jesus is Jehovah and the Father is Elohim (in the OT >gb> >Jehovah and Elohim are the same). That He needed to be saved. >gb>   It is true that Mormons believe that all spirits (including Jesus, Lucifer, Robert Weiss) are in the same family.  It does not mean that Jesus was created, but rather that Lucifer and Robert Weiss were not.  I agree that this is a "heresy".  So what?   The sweating of blood in Gethsemene is not a basic Mormon doctrine.  Jesus did not perform the atonement in Getheseme alone, as some anti-Mormons are trying to teach.   As far as the "unpardonable sin" whatever that is, it is Biblical, and not specifically Mormon.  It is also called the sin against the Holy Ghost.  Most Bible scholars (other than conservative ones) do not believe Jehovah and Elohim were always the same. I'm sure you've heard of the J and the E texts?  I don't know what you mean by "That He needed to be saved".  Jesus? Jehovah?  Elohim?  In Mormon doctrine, Jesus was sinless, and thus did not "need to be saved".     --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
In article <C62Ar1.LDt@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote: >  > In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: > >Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature > >will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older. >  > Ah, so you admit newborns are innocent?  Then you cannot say _everyone_ is a > sinner. >  > About the only way top get out of this one is to claim that a newborn is a > sinner despite having not committed any sins, which is rather odd.  This all would also implicate that in order for the sinning 2 month old baby to get forgivance, he or she has to ask for help from Jesus. Somehow I find this a little bit amuzing.  Cheers, Kent
I baptize you with water for repentance. 	But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, 	whose sandals I am not fit to carry. 	He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes: > >If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art >automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal." >[Carl Stern, Justice Department]   Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art. Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?
In article <buddha.735157446@du248-07.cc.iastate.edu> buddha@iastate.edu (Scott H Vann) writes: > >	I recently read an article in a local paper written by an Islamic >  person who was upset with the way Islam has been portrayed by western media. >  When a terrorist action takes place in the middle east, it is always played >  up as an Islamic Terrorist.  However, when the a Serbian terrorist attacks >  the Croations, its not a Christian terrorist, its just a terrorist. >	I have often tried to explain this to some close friends who believe >  the press, that Islam is somehow tied to violence.  Often times you hear >  things like "They just don't value human life like we do..." and so on. >  I was wondering if anyone out there had any suggestions for how we can >  change this image, or how I can help my friends to see that this is just  >  hype.  I would appreciate any serious suggestions or comments via e-mail, >  and I'm not interested in hearing about how right the press is.  Very easily. Show them pictures of crime scenes perpetrated by Christian terrorists in this country, if that doesn't convince them have them talk to the victims of Christian terrorism.   A brutal act of terrorism inspired by Christian propoganda was recently commited on your very campus.   Its very simple religious extremists of all religions put no value on human life. Christian and Islamic fundamentalists put advancing there religion above all else, even if doing so violates the religion itself.  P.S. I'm not saying all Christians are terrorists, I'm using "Christian      terrorist" in the same way the media uses Islamic terrorist.
In article <C5s9CK.2Bt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes: >  who would be alive today if they had been released back when we were  	The word "released" is loaded:  until convicted in CXOurt, 	my children are my own.
cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes: >           David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire >was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities >knocked over a lantern.  Sort of a "Mrs. O'Leary's" tank theory? Moooo.
(Frank DeCenso) > But how? It's evident from the texts in Ezek 26-28 that God isn't concerned > about buildings or structures - God is concerned about people.  The people and > leadership (Ezek 28) never did return as a city.  Others may have come later > and built a city, but the people and leadership that God prophesied about in > Ezek 26-28 were never rebuilt as a city of people and leaders.    How incredibly fucking stupid.  Of *course* the text is referring to the city itself (buildings, bricks, mortar, etc.)  Otherwise it makes no sense to refer to the future of Tyre as being reduced to nothing but a _place_ to spread  fishing nets.
Jim Brown wrote :  [ deleted ] >I feel that those who use the KJV as a basis for arguing Biblical  >contradictions are either being intellectually dishonest (purposefully >wanting to show the Bible in the worst light possible), or they are >being mentally lazy and are taking the easy way out.  Either way, they >leave the theist the option of countering with, "Well, that's just the >KJV, that's not what my XXX version says." [ deleted ]    Unfortunately, it's not that simple.  The KJV is preferred by the majority of fundamentalists (at least here).  The second part of your argument fails as well, since that statement can be used against any version (not just the KJV).  [ deleted ] >I've based my argument on one of the best modern translations >available which is based on the work of the leading Biblical scholars." [ deleted ]    I would not find this statement to be very useful since it is an appeal to authority and the opposition will just claim that their authorities are "better".  A second tact that local creationists have used is to reply "but those scholars are atheists and cannot be believed" (they will also use this phrase to describe any theologians that they don't agree with).  [ deleted ] >>>/GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth >>>/cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. [ deleted ]
In article <1993Apr17.010734.23670@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > The truth is, is that it is not some sort of magic spell.  The truth > is is that you do not understand it, and enjoy not understanding it.  I'm curious about this statement, is it a known understanding amongst Christian believers that people who don't understand the Christian doctrines are enjoying this state? I come from a background with  a heavy Christian teaching (Lutheran church), and consider myself knowledgeable with the basic understandings of Christianity. At the  same time I'm *not* proud of things I don't understand or know of at this point of time. Ignorance is not bliss!  Cheers, Kent
The primary problem in human nature is a "fragmentation of being." Humans are in a state of tension, a tension of opposites. Good and evil are the most thought provoking polarities that come to mind.  The Bible provides us with many examples of the fragmentation of being. The warring opposites within us are a product of man's rebellion against God, which is described so vividly in the pages of the Scriptures.  Man was created with the order to become a god. Those were the words of St.  Basil in the fourth century. What he was trying to say was that God created man to be a partaker of the divine nature. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, this is called "theosis," or "deification."  One can also say that man was created to be whole, i.e. spirit, soul, and body operating in unison. The story of Adam and Eve is a picture of the archetypal humans before obtaining moral consciousness. Theirs was a harmonious relationship with each other, the world, and the Creator. That innocent harmony was shattered when they disobeyed God, their natural wholeness falling apart into two seemingly irreconcilable halves. Immediately, guilt and fear was manifested in their lives. They become bound to hardship, toil, and suffering.  This is symbolized in their exile from the paradisiac state.  The beast in the jungle does not possess moral consciousness. If it were to receive this self-awareness, the knowledge of good and evil, its paradisiac state would also be destroyed.  Was it the intention of the Creator to leave man in this state of innocence all the days of his existence on earth? Or was the gaining of self-awareness carefully staged by God, who did not desire that His masterpiece, mankind, be a blissful idiot?  God must have known that, for mankind to achieve any kind of moral value, he must pass through a confrontation with the opposites. There is no other way to achieve union with God.  Jesus Christ is the answer to the problem of the warring polarities. He was the perfectly integrated individual, reconciling the opposites, and making it possible for us to be integrated, i.e. to become God, not in His essence, but in His energies.  The opposites is THE Christian problem. The Apostle Paul describes it with the utmost precision in Romans 7:15-24. And he follows with the answer to his dilemma in vs 25.
In <1993Apr14.101241.476@mtechca.maintech.com> foster@mtechca.maintech.com writes:  >I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior >from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're- >The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought  >that Catholics behaved better than this. >                                   Please do not stoop to the >level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think >that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud, >insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.  (Pleading mode on)  Please!  I'm begging you!  Quit confusing religious groups, and stop making generalizations!  I'm a Protestant!  I'm an evangelical!  I don't believe that my way is the only way!  I'm not a "creation scientist"!  I don't think that homosexuals should be hung by their toenails!    If you want to discuss bible thumpers, you would be better off singling out (and making obtuse generalizations about) Fundamentalists.  If you compared the actions of Presbyterians or Methodists with those of Southern  Baptists, you would think that they were different religions!  Please, prejudice is about thinking that all people of a group are the same, so please don't write off all Protestants or all evangelicals!  (Pleading mode off.)  God.......I wish I could get ahold of all the Thomas Stories......
In article <1993Apr26.231845.13843@digi.lonestar.org> qpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)  >The danger of anti-cult groups is that while they can expose a lot of >deception, they can also become inquisitors.  As one who agrees with >much of what they say, I am also on the receiving end, and it makes me >realize the importance of respecting the freedom of belief of every >individual and also of not jumping to conclusions and making accusations >based on a priori assumptions about an individual or group.  For my money the primary danger of anti-cult groups is that they are every bit as wacky as the groups they oppose and that by and large they have no compunctions about printing lies, half-truths and misleading innuendos as part of their exposes.  A recent book on cults I picked up by a "Christian" author quite simply mixed in all non-Christian religions (except the Jews) and various New Age groups with various fringe groups of dubious intent and legality.  >On the other hand, the Watchman Fellowship does a good service in >exposing deceptive practices that are far too common among the >groups they monitor.  Given the record of American Christianity, any group that falls into the category of fundamentalist or born-again is automatically into the Inquisition business.  It is an unavoidable affliction of those who have a proprietary license on The Truth (tm). And let's not forget that Jonestown and the Branch Davidians are just as much a part of the Christian tradition as the Missouri Synod Lutherans, and may in fact be the Massadas of true Christian believers.  I am far more concerned about the encroachment of overtly Christian indoctrination into public schools than I am about yoga classes there.  For those concerned with religious freedom without a selective inquisitiorial bent:  People for the American Way P.O. Box 96200 Washington, DC 20077-7500  Americans United for Separation of Church & State 8120 Fenton Street Silver Spring, MD 20910-9978
Just to remark that I have heard that David Koresh has risen from  the dead.  I dont know if it is true or not, but this is what I have been told.  What do you guys think?
David Joslin (joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu) wrote: : af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes: : >Based on the amount of E-Mail from fellow Christians who have read the : >posts and told me I was wasting my time with Butler and Joslin, I told : >them I wasn't doing it for DB or  DJ but for other Christians.  They : >have told me that DB's and DJ's arguments won't convince most Bible : >studying Christians.  So I have reevaluated my purpose here and it's : >also contributed to my decision.  : So most Bible-studying Christians won't be convinced by my arguments?  : And this is supposed to be a Good Thing, I presume?  Where does this "Most Bible studying Christians think as Frank does" come from.  And what implied "good" are you doing for other Christians?  At least some of what you are teaching has been demonstrated as wrong.  Has it ever occured to you that you may be doing more harm than good to your fellow Christians?  BTW, I used to think like Frank does.  I went to a fundamentalist church for a while.  I didn't start to really think about what they were saying until I noticed a "God's Science" phamphlet there.  I read it and noticed that the authors of it knew virtually nothing about Science.  I asked church members some questions about "theories" from the phamphlet and got only deceptive answers.  I began to notice a very similar style of "answers" for theological questions as well.  The only conclusion I could reach was that these peoples' beliefs about the Bible were about as valid as their beliefs in their God's Science phamphlet.  : If there are still people out there who think that my purpose here : is to "attack the Bible," (an accusation Frank once made) I would point : out that I have also criticized people who have posted "bible : contradictions" that turn out to be silly, out of context, or easily : (and legitimately) reconciled.  I'm not attacking the Bible, but  : intellectual dishonesty *about* the Bible, from either side.  If one of the primary purposes of Christians is to seek out truth, how can people condemn you for doing this?
In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET> LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes: > >  Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things >like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of >theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds >that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation >of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems >to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, >but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to >simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it? >  Just curious, >-- >Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET   When Robert refers to the "orthodox", he is talking about the Historical position of the Christian Faith. Such things are derived from Biblcal texts through the centuries by the apocolic fathers of the faith.  You are right that people read things differently in the Bible, and this is alright in parts like parables and such forth. However, when it comes to the essential doctrines of the Historical Orthodox Christan Beliefs, there is only one correct way to read it. For example, either the doctrine of the Trinity is true, or it is false. Yes, people read the texts differently, but only one position is true. They both cannot be. According to the text, the doctrine is true and has always existed.
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >  > And I find is extremely discusting to talk about politically > incorrect actions, and forget the actual tragedy. Think, > imagine your eight month old son dying in flames... >  > Kent > --- > sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.  We have reached the point in our society when there are certain crimes that are so heinous that to merely be accused with them one is automaticly considered guilty and deemed not to have any natural rights much less civil  rights. Among these are drug abuse, sexual perversion, and political  incorrectness. Today Billary accused Koresh of having SEX with infants. He had been accused of a number of differing crimes (inconsistantly) over the last two months, but  this is the first time I have heard that one. I had heard child abuse but this is somewhat stronger. It is fairly obvious that Koresh  was hiding behind the children; and ironicly considering his apocalyptic dread, believed enough in the American People's inherent goodness to believe he was protected. It is truly amazing that all these people who 60 days ago had never heard of  the Branch Davidian now believe that he was suicidal, crazy, a child abuser and  a immenant danger to others based solely on what the Government spokespersons had said. Remember that these people have an awful lot to loose if it is found that they have screwed up.  But they don't have as much to lose as David Koresh and his followers lost. For in our society as it stands murder is not one of the heinous crimes.
In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >#	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define  >#what "objective values" are. > >Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people >of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that  >sound like a good deal?   Well, that would depend on how much we wanted the US and how much we wanted the $1, wouldn't it? -Ekr
In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: >Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature >will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.  Ah, so you admit newborns are innocent?  Then you cannot say _everyone_ is a sinner.  About the only way top get out of this one is to claim that a newborn is a sinner despite having not committed any sins, which is rather odd. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole     that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...    -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)