waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.21.03.26.43.1993.1373@geneva.rutgers.edu> parkin@Eng.Sun.COM writes:  >desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah.  If >the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this >cup pass from him.  Was this out of weakness.  NEVER.  Many men and >women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes. >Is Jesus less than these.  No he is not.  He knew the crucification >was NOT the will of GOD.  God's will was that the Jewish people accept >Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on >the earth with Jesus as it's head. (Just like the Jewish people >expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what 	. 	. 	.  Why do you assume that Jesus's plea to His Father "to let this cup pass from Him", was merely a plea to escape death?  When I look at Jesus in the garden, I see a Man-God, who all His life had had the presense of His Father with Him.  As a result, He knew every detail about His death long before the Agony in the Garden.  But as that hour approached, He felt abandoned by His Father, His presense diminishing with each passing minute.  In addition, it was brought more and more to Jesus's attention (the betrayal of Judas was probably a big impact) that His suffering would be to no avail for many people, especially those who would reject Him, not only then but in the future.  I truly believe that the majority of Jesus's suffering was mental and spiritual, while the physical portion was only the tip of the iceburg.  BTW, we know from John's account that Jesus *shunned* becomming an earthly king.  From John:  JOH 6:14    After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they             began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the             world." JOH 6:15    Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by             force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.  This does not seem like a man who would regret not becoming an earthly king.  No, Jesus knew His mission was to redeem all (Jew & Gentile) people and establish His kingdom in the hearts of those who would believe.  This was utterly mistaken, much to Jesus's dismay, as an aspiration to some earthly kingdom.  But He knew what His Father's will was and followed it obediently even in the darkness of His Passion.
>	Why do we follow God so blindly?  Have you ever asked a >physically blind person why he or she follows a seeing eye dog? >The answer is quite simple--the dog can see, and the blind person >cannot. ... >	Of course, you may ask, if I cannot trust my own senses, >how do I know whether what I see and hear about God is truth or >a lie.  That is why we need faith to be saved.  We must force >ourselves to believe that God knows the truth, and loves us >enough to share it with us, even when it defies what we think >we know.  Why would He have created us if He did not love us  >enough to help us through this world?   Seems to me if you learned to differentiate between illusion and reality on your own you wouldn't need to rely on doctrines that need to be updated.  My experience of Christianity (25+ years) is that most Christians seek answers from clergymen who have little or no direct experience of spiritual matters, and that most of these questions can be answered by simple introspection.  Most people suspect that they cannot trust their senses, but few take the next step to figure out that they can trust themselves.  Not to get too esoteric, but it seems that most religions, Christianity included, are founded by particularly intuitive people who understand this.  (stuff deleted)  >	As for you, no one can "convert" you.  You must >choose to follow God of your own will, if you are ever to >follow Him.  All we as Christians wish to do is share with >you the love we have received from God.  If you reject that, >we have to accept your decision, although we always keep >the offer open to you.  If you really want to find out >why we believe what we believe, I can only suggest you try >praying for faith, reading the Bible, and asking Christians >about their experiences personally....  And what if the original poster, Pixie, is never "converted?" Does it make sense that she (or I, or the majority of humanity for that matter) would go to hell for eternity, as many  Christians believe?  It makes more sense to me that rather than be converted to a centuries-old doctrine that holds no life for her, that she simply continue to decide for herself what is best.    --------------------------------------------
After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it  has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with  Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think  to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate. Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted  for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!
[In response to some of the discussions on the Sabbath, Andrew Byler commented that if we really followed sola scriptura we would worship on Saturday -- the change to Sunday was a law made by the Church, and we don't acknowledge its authority to make laws.  I noted that Protestants do not consider Sunday worship a law.  --clh]  He was not referring to the FAQ but to the five Sabbath Admissions posted on the bible study group.  This is what prompted someone to send the FAQ to me.  >  The argument against the Sabbath is > that it is part of the ceremonial law, and like the rest of the n> ceremonial law is not binding on Christians.  You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the ceremonial laws.   Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.  > If you accept that > the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, then the day of worship > falls into the category of items on which individual Christians or > (since worship is by its nature a group activity) churches are free to > decide. >  Can the churches also decide what is and is not sin?  Interesting.  Where there is no divine imperative of course we must establish rules of operation.  But we cannot be as creative with what God has explicitly spoken on.  Darius
I've heard it said that the accounts we have of Christs life and ministry in the Gospels were actually written many years after the event. (About 40 years or so). Is this correct?? If so, why the big time delay?? I know all scripture is inspired of God, so the time of writing is I suppose un-important, but I still can't help be curious!  --------------------------------------------------- Ivan Thomas Barr   Contact me at u9126619@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk  [The Gospels aren't dated, so we can only guess.  Luke's prolog is about the only thing we have from the author describing his process. The prolog sounds like Luke is from the next generation, and had to do some investigating.  There are traditions passed down verbally that say a few things about the composition of the Gospels.  There are debates about how reliable these traditions are.  They certainly don't have the status of Scripture, yet scholars tend to take some of them seriously.  One suggests that Mark was based on Peter's sermons, and was written to preserve them when Peter had died or way about to die. One tradition about Matthew suggests that a collection of Jesus words may have been made earlier than the current Gospels.    In the ancient world, it was much more common to rely on verbal transmission of information.  I think many people would have preferred to hear about Jesus directly from someone who had known him, and maybe even from someone who studied directly under such a person, rather than from a book.  Thus I suspect that the Gospels are largely from a period when these people were beginning to die.  Scholars generally do think there was some written material earlier, which was probably used as sources for the existing Gospels.  Establishing the dates is a complex and technical business.  I have to confess that I'm not sure how much reliance I'd put on the methods used.  But it's common to think that Mark was written first, around 64 AD., and that all of the Gospels were written by the end of the Century.  A few people vary this by a decade or so one way or the other.
In article <Apr.16.23.15.27.1993.1836@geneva.rutgers.edu> cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis) writes:  >: I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged >: couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have >: publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and >: are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective >: qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight. > >The way I read Scripture, a couple becomes married when they are *physically* >married, i.e. when they first have sexual intercourse.  Some years ago an Anglican synod was discussing the marriage canons and  there was some debate on what actually constituted a marriage.  The bishop of Natal, whose wife of many years had died, and who had recently  remarried, announced "It MUST be consummated" and looked like that cat that  got the cream.  So I suppose he at least would agree with you.
mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:  > And the same goes for other cultural practices.  The festival  > of Easter may possibly have some historical association with  > some pagan festival, but *today* there are, as far as I know,  > no Christians who *intend* to honor any kind of "pagan  > goddess" by celebrating Easter.
I see a parallel between what I will stupidly call the "homosexual"  issue and the "atheist" issue. Please take no offense at these comparisons.  The homosexual "feels" things that I admit I do not "feel".  He learns that these feelings are classified as homosexual feelings and learns of a model of sexuality that seems to apply to his feelings, which he then can fit with his experiences. That is, this model gives him a sense of understanding his situation. Models that do not match up with what he knows he feels will be discarded. However, one wonders if once accepting the idea of his being gay and deciding what exactly that means he will analyze all his feelings and experiences based on  the definition he has already accepted, which of course validates his model.  If that was hard to understand now listen to my parallel.  The Christian "feels" things that an atheist claims he does not feel. The Christian accepts the Christian theology as the true description of what his feelings mean. Once accepting this model he interprets his experiences with regards to this model which of course validates his Christianity.  As a reminder, I am a Christian, a Catholic, I don't hate  homosexuals or atheists, but am just trying to understand them. I only compare them because they are both so foreign to me. Am I as blind to the homosexual as the atheist seems blind to me? Or am I as prejudiced against atheistic denial of religious experience as the homosexual is prejudiced against  attempts by society to deny his sexuality?  Or am I just out to lunch, again?
[In looking through my files this weekend, I ran across some lyrics from various rock groups that have content.  Here are two from Black Sabbath's "Master of Reality".  I'll say this much for the music of the '60's and early '70's, at least they asked questions of significance.  Jethro Tull is another to asked and wrote about things that caused one to wonder. --Rex]   AFTER FOREVER  Have you ever thought about your soul--      can it be saved? Or perhaps you think that when you're dead      you just stay in you grave. Is God just a thought within you read in a book      when you were at school? When you think about death       Do you lose your breath      Or do you keep your cool?  Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope? Do you think he's a fool? Well I have seen the truth.  Yes I have seen the light      and I've changed my ways. And I'll be prepared       When you're lonely and scared      at the end of your days.  Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say If they knew you believed in God above? They should realize before they criticise That God is the only way to love.   Is your mind so small that you have to fall In with the pack wherever they run? Will you still sneer when death is near And say they may as well worship the sun?  I think it was true -it was people like you      that crucified Christ. I think it is sad the opinion you had      was the only one voiced. Will you be so sure when your day is near      to say you don't believe? You had the chance but you turned it down      now you can't retrieve. Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead & gone Open your eyes, just realize that He is the one. The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate. Or will you still jeer at all you hear? Yes!  I think it's too late.   LORD OF THIS WORLD
In a previous article, 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes: >  >  One of my questions I would > like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological > works intended for a lay person? >   I would recommend "Essential Truthes of the Christian Faith" by RC Sproul. It is copywrited 1992 from Tyndale House Publishers. Sproul offers concise  explanations, in simple language, of around 100 different Christian  doctrines, grouped by subject. I think it would be particularly good for newer Christians (and older Christians suffering spiritual malnutrition), as it gives a Biblically sound basic treatment of the issues, avoiding  long in-depth analysis that can wait until after you know the basics.
According to what I have read on Biblical idioms, speaking "in X's name" is a standard Aramaic/Hebrew legal idiom for what we today would call Power of Attorney.  A person from Jesus' culture authorized to conduct business "in John's name" had full authority over John's financial affairs, but was held under a solemn fiduciary obligation to work only for John's benefit and consonant with John's wishes.  It was not required for the steward to preface each business transaction with "in John's name"; it was sufficient to have valid power of attorney and be operating in good faith. (Note the overlap here between legal and religious definitions of "faith".)  With this cultural background, praying "in Jesus' name" does not mandate a particular verbal formula; rather it requires that the petitioner be operating faithfully and consciously within an analogous "fiduciary" relationship with Jesus and for the purposes of His Kingdom.  The message of "praying in Jesus' name" is thus closely aligned with the parable of the talents and other passages about God's delegation of Kingdom business to his stewards, both resources and responsibilities.  This idea of praying "in Jesus' name" is not only present but prominent in the Lord's Prayer, although the verbal forumula is absent.  The act of praying the words "In Jesus' Name" may be beneficial if they cause us to clarify the relationship of our requests to the advancement of God's Kingdom.  For that reason, I'm not quite ready to say that the praying the formula is without meaning.  Prayers to God for other purposes (desperation, anger, thanksgiving, etc.) don't seem to be in this category at all, whether uttered by Christian or non-Christian, whether B.C. or A.D. (that's B.C.E. or C.E. for you P.C. :-).  I don't see anything in Christ's words to contradict the idea that God deals with all prayers according to His omniscience and grace.  Van Kelly vek@research.att.com
Julie, it is a really trying situation that you have described.  My brother was living with someone like that and things were almost as bad (although he left after a considerably shorter amount of time due to other problems with the relationship).  Anyway, the best thing to do would be to get everyone in the same room together (optimally in a room with nothing breakable), lock the door behind you, throw the key out underneath the door (just as far as the longest hand can reach.  You would like to get out after the conclusion, I would imagine), and hash things out.  More than likely, there will be screaming, crying, and possibly hitting (unless of course someone decided to bring some rope to tie people down).  Some of the best strategies in keeping things calmer would include:    have each individual own their own statements (ie, I feel that this relationship is hurting everyone involved because.... or I really don't understand where you're coming from.)    reinforce statements by paraphrasing, etc. (ie, So you think that we did this because of...?  Well, let me just say that the reason for this was ....)    don't accuse each other (It was your fault that ... happened!)    find a common ground about SOMETHING (Lampshades really are decorational and functional at the same time.)    Guaranteed, in a situation like this, there is going to be some gunnysacking (re-hashing topics which were assumed resolved, but were truly not and someone feels someone else is to blame).  However, this should be kept to a minimum and simply ask for forgiveness or apologize about each situation WITHOUT holding a smoldering grudge.    The relationship really can work.  It's just a matter of keeping things smooth and even.  It's sort of like making a peace treaty between warring factions:  you can't give one side everything; there must be a compromise.  Breaks can be taken, but communication between everyone involved must continue if the relationships here are to survive.
On the question, "Does God hear the prayers of sinners?" we need to distinguish.  If we say that He never hears the prayers of any who have sinned, we make pointless all prayers by anyone born less than 19 centuries ago.  But if we consider the prayers of the impenitent sinner, of someone who says, "Lord, I want you to do this for me, but don't expect me to change my way of life," that is a different matter. Even here, I would not venture to say that God never grants such petitions (just as He sends sun and rain on the evil and on the good). However, if someone we know well is praying to God in that spirit, we might have the responsibility to say, "Remember, if God's help is real, then so are His commands."
In article <Apr.11.01.02.46.1993.17799@athos.rutgers.edu> mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   ) writes:  >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. > >My discussions with some Christians remind me of schoolyard >discussions when I was in grade school: > >A kid would say, "All policemen are jerks!"  I'd ask, "How do >you know?"  "Because my daddy told me so!"  "How do you know >you're daddy is right?"  "He says he's always right!" > >Well the argument usually stops right there.  In the end, >aren't we all just kids, groping for the truth?  If so, do we have >the authority to declare all other beliefs besides our own as >false?  I find this argument very strange, though not unfamiliar.  An analogy someone used a while back can perhaps illustrate it.  Say, for example, there are people living on a volcanic island, and a group  of geologists determine that a volcano is imminent. They warn the people on  the island that they are in danger, and should leave. A group of people on  the island is given the task of warning others of the danger.  They believe the danger is real, but others may not.   Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning  others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs  are correct, and all others are false?  Some might indeed react to opposition with arrogance, and behave in an  arrogant manner, but that is a personal idiocyncracy. It does not  necessarily mean that they are all arrogant.
A recent post bears the subject line:   > Re: Serbian genocide work of God?  The text contains 80 lines devoted to a defence of the doctrine of predestination as applied to the salvation of individuals. There is then a five-line post-script on the Balkans. It is natural and easy to keep the Subject line of the post that one is replying to, but when the focus shifts, keeping the same Subject can cause confusion.  This is intended as a general request. The post mentioned is just the handiest example.
In article <Apr.19.05.10.33.1993.29070@athos.rutgers.edu>, Gene.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Gene Gross) writes: >  > Of course they knew where it was. Don't forget that Jesus was seen by both > the Jews and the Romans as a troublemaker. Pilate was no fool and didn't  > need the additional headaches of some fishermen stealing Jesus' body to  > make it appear He had arisen. Since Jesus was buried in the grave of a  > man well know to the Sanhedrin, to say that they didn't know where He was > buried begs the question.  Here again, the problem with most of the individuals posting here, you take the biblical account as though it were some sort of historical recounting in the modern sense.  I would refer you to John Dominic Crossans Book _The Cross That Spoke_ (Pub. Harper and Row, 1988).  The earliest texts which we have make no reference to an empty tomb.  Nor is an empty tomb necessary for a claim of resurrection. Modern Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have completely missed what the point of resurrection is -- Here the work of George Nickelsburg's work  _Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism_ (Publ Cambridge, Havard Univ. Press, 1972) is most helpful.  Look At Rom 1:1-3.  Paul here has no need of an empty tomb.  Additionally in 1 Cor 15, Here again there is no mention of an empty tomb. He was raised (note the passive), he appeared, no ascension either.  Resurrection could be accomplished without ever disturbing the bones in the grave.  The whole idea of an empty tomb isn't broached in any of our texts until well after the fall of Jerusalem.  By that time, the idea of coming up with a body would have been ludicrious.  Moreover Mack has argued (convicingly, I think) that the empty tomb story first appears in Mark (we have no texts before this which mention the tomb).        >  > Now, you say that you think that the disciples stole the body. But think on > this a moment. Would you die to maintain something you KNEW to be a  > deliberate lie!? If not, then why do you think the disciples would!? Now, I'm > not talking about dying for something you firmly believe to be the truth,  > but unbeknown to you, it is a lie. Many have done this. No, I'm talking about > dying, by beheading, stoning, crucifixion, etc., for something you know to > be a lie! Thus, you position with regards to the disciples stealing the  > body seems rather lightweight to me. >  > As for graverobbers, why risk the severe penalties for grave robbing over  > the body of Jesus? He wasn't buried with great riches. So, again, this is > an argument that can be discounted. >  > That leaves you back on square one. What happened to the body!? >  >  > [Again, let me comment that the most plausible non-Christian scenario, > and the one typically suggested by sceptics who are knowledgeable > about the NT, is that the resurrection was a subjective event, and the > empty tomb stories are a result of accounts growing in the telling. > --clh]  You are quite right here.  Even the Idea of a subjective mystical event as the foundation of the resurrection narratives is currently becoming more untenable. See B. Mack _A Myth of Innocence_.