waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
The  N A T I O N A L  D A Y                                   o f                             P  R  A  Y  E  R                             6  M A Y  1 9 9 3             IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;            :                                                :            :           JOIN AMERICA IN PRAYER TO:           :            :                                                :            :     * Acknowledge our dependence upon God;     :            :                                                :            :     * Give thanks for His many blessings;      :            :                                                :            :     * Ask God to guide our leaders and to      :            :       bring healing, reconciliation and whole- :            :       ness to our nation and all its people.   :            :                                                :            HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<                        OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID...       George Washington:  "I now make it my earnest prayer that God...          (A.D. 1783)     would be pleased to dispose us all to do                          justice, to love mercy, and to demean      ourselves with charity and humility, and a pacific temper of mind,      which were characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed      Religion, and without an humble imitation of Whose example in      these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation."        John Adams:  "It must be felt that there is no national security      (A.D. 1853)  but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence                   upon God and His overruling providence."        Abraham Lincoln:   "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men,        (A.D. 1863)      to own their dependence upon the overruling                         power of God, to confess their sins and      transgressions...and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in      the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations      only are blessed whose God is the Lord..."        NOTE:  You can join with people in your area in observing the             NATIONAL DAY Of PRAYER.  To learn who is affiliated with             the Concerts Of Prayer group in your area, contact:
In article <Apr.21.03.25.58.1993.1337@geneva.rutgers.edu> reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes: >I am beginning an e-mail discussion group about cell churches.  If you are  Please, define cell church.  I missed it somewhere in the past when this was brought up before.
I would like to hear from people who are thinking of going to the Urbana 93 conference in December this year.  I have recently received info from IFES (International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) and am thinking about attending although I am still not sure whether I can afford it.  I would also like to hear from people involved in IFES or IVF groups just to hear how things are going on your campus. Are there any news groups or groups of people who already do this.  I am involved in the Christian Fellowship at the University of Technology Sydney in Australia.  If you are interested to find out how we are going  mail me to find out.
In article <Apr.11.01.02.34.1993.17784@athos.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org writes:  	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods anyway?
In a previous message  aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:  >If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong, >then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.   [More stuff deleted]  This seems to be a pretty arogant definition of belief.  My beliefs are those things which I find to be true based on my experience of the world.  This experience includes study of things that I may not have experienced directly.  But even then, I can only understand the studies to the extent to which I can relate what I study back to what I have experienced.  Which means that by beliefs about God are directly related to my experience of God.  Having experienced God, I try to make sense of that experience.  I study religion and read the Bible.  I find things that echo what I have already experienced.  Out of this I build my beliefs.  I also find things that don't match my experience.  That doesn't make them false.  They just don't match my experience.  Maybe I will understand that stuff later.  I don't know.  Maybe all of my beliefs are wrong.  I can change my beliefs.  If someone else has beliefs that are different from mine, so what. Neither of us are necessarily wrong.  Someone else is making sense out of a different set of experiences.  Even though we have different explanations and beliefs, if we talk we might even discover that the underlying experiences are similar.  Some people approach religion as a truth that can only exist in one form, and usually has a single revelation.  The more dogmatic and inflexible the belief system, the more arrogant it will appear to an outsider.  There is another approach possible, however.  God is a mystery.  I am trying to solve the mystery, so I look at the evidence available to me.  I try to arrive at the best understanding that I can based on the evidence.  New evidence may cause me to change my understanding.  When I encounter someone with a different belief than my own, it isn't a threat, it is an opportunity to perhaps discover something new about this mystery I can never fully comprehend.  Peace Will Taber ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  | William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed | | Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may | | Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   | |	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
A section of Richard Badenas' book, "Christ The End of the Law, Romans 10.14  in Pauline Perspective."  The section I have is on the Contextual setting and  meaning of Romans 9-11.  In addition, there are 111 endnotes.  Since the file is so long, and because of other reasons, I will take requests for the article personally.  Of course, I believe Badenas' insights to be true, and, quite damaging to the traditional Augustinian/Calvinist view.
>Paul Conditt writes: >>In case you couldn't tell, I get *extremely* angry and upset when >>I see things like this.  Instead of rationalizing our own fears and >>phobias, we need to be reaching out to people with AIDS and other >>socially unacceptable diseases.  Whether they got the disease through >>their own actions or not is irrelevant.  They still need Jesus...  Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes: >The first issue you bring up is your anger.  It is "obvious"ly wrong to >be angry (Gal 5:19-20) for any reason, especially *extremely* angry >which is on par with hatred.  Jesus has every reason to be angry at us >for putting him on the cross with our sin, yet his prayer was "forgive >them Father, they know not what they do."  ...  I don't know why it is so obvious.  We are not speaking of acts of the  flesh.  We are just speaking of emotions.  Emotions are not of themselves moral or immoral, good or bad.  Emotions just are.  The first step is not to label his emotion as good or bad or to numb ourselves so that we hide our true feelings, it is to accept ourselves as we are, as God accepts us.  It seems that Paul's anger he has accepted and channeled it to a plea to all of us to refrain from passing judgement on those afflicted with a disease and to reach out to others.  Give in?  Calling his arguments foolish, belittling them to only quarrels, avoiding action because of fear to give others a bad feeling, he's not forgiving?  Re-think it, Aaron.  Don't be quick to judge.  He has forgiven those with AIDS, he has dealt with and taken responsibility for his feelings and made appropriate choices for action on such feelings.  He has not given in to his anger.
In article <May.11.02.37.28.1993.28163@athos.rutgers.edu> dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes: >: >     I believe with everything in my heart that on May 3, 1993, the city of >: >Portland, Oregon in the country of the United States of America will be hit >: >with a catastrophic and disastrous earthquake... >: By now, we know that this did not come to pass....  Surprise, surprise. I sure didn't lose any sleep over it, and I live there.  >Mistakes in this area are costly and dangerous.  For me, my greatest fears >in this area would be the following:[..] >4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word, >   my calling would be lost forever.  God's Word would command the people >   never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet.  My >   bridges would be burnt forever.  Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but >   I could never again be a prophet of God.  Suppose someone said that he was sure that he would return from death, in glory and power, flying in the clouds with the host of heaven,soon, within the lifetimes of those then standing with him - and 2000 years went by without any such event. [He also asserted, so they say, himself to be God.]  2 questions:  	1) Is that one of those "false prophecies" you were talking about? 	2) Does that make the speaker a false prophet?  >Speak directly.  If the Lord has given you something to say, say it. >But, before I declare "thus sayeth the Lord", I'd better know for certain >without a shadow of a doubt that I am in the correct spiritual condition >and relationship with the Lord to receive such a prophecy and be absolutely >certain, again, without the tiniest shadow of a doubt that there is no >possibility of my being misled by my own imaginations or by my hope of gaining >recognition or of being misled by the wiles of the devil and his followers.  Uhh,  Has it occurred to you that there is no way to know any of these things, for certain, "without the tiniest shadow of a doubt"? That people who thought they did have also been deluded?  Those of us who believe in actually being able to _CHECK_ our opinions have an out - we can check against some external reality. Those who assert that beliefs entertained without evidence, or even despite evidence have a special virtue (ie. "faith") are out of luck -- and this is the result.  >It's time that we christians give an example of honesty that stands out in >contrast against this backdrop of falsehood.  When we say, "thus sayeth the >Lord", it happens.  When we pray, prayer is answered because we prayed right. >When we say we're christians, we really mean it. > >           Dan  You want to demonstrate Christian honesty? Great. Start with the prophecy above - what can we conclude about the speaker?
The following is a survey we are conducting for a term project in a philosophy class. It is not meant to give us anything interesting statistically; we want to hear what kind of voices there are out there. We are not asking for full- blown essays, but please give us what you can.  As I do not read these groups often, please email all responses to me at shimpei@leland.stanford.edu. As my mail account is not infinite, if you can delete the questions and just have numbered answers when you write back I would really appreciate it.  Since we would like to start analyzing the result as soon as possible, we would like to have the answers by April 30. If you absolutely cannot make it by then, though, we would still liken to hear your answer.  If anyone is interested in our final project please send a note to that effect would like to have the answers by April 30. If you absolutely cannot make it by then, though, we would still like to hear your answer.  If anyone is interested in our final project please send a note to that effect (or better yet, include a note along with your survey response) and I'll try to email it to you, probably in late May.  SURVEY:  Question 1) Have you ever had trouble reconciling faith and reason? If so, what was the trouble? (For example: -Have you ever been unsure whether Creationism or Evolutionism                holds more truth?               -Do you practice tarot cards, palm readings, or divination that                conflicts with your scientific knowledge of the world?               -Does your religion require you to ignore physical realities that                you have seen for yourself or makes logical sense to you?) Basically, we would like to know if you ever _BELIEVED_ in something that your _REASON_tells you is wrong.  Question 2) If you have had conflict, how did/do you resolve the conflict?  Question 3) If you haven't had trouble, why do you think you haven't? Is there a set of guidelines you use for solving these problems?  Thank you very much for your time.     --  Shimpei Yamashita, Stanford University       email:shimpei@leland.stanford.edu              "There are three kinds of mathematicians:                those who can count and those who can't."
In article  jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:  > Catholics view the effects of Baptism slightly differently, and that's  > one primary reason why they baptize babies.  They believe that Baptism  > produces a change in the soul of the baby, quite independently of any  > volitional act on the part of the baby.  This change in the baby's soul  > gives the infant certain capabilities that he would not have  > without Baptism.  Since the infant does not have the use of his  > intellect and will yet, these new faculties are dormant.  But as the  > child gets older, the gifts of Baptism come more and more into play.      I guess I would react rather strongly to this line of thinking carried  out!  When you think "your army" is stronger than "mine", you would  "righteously" take my children and baptize them, doing what you know is  really "best" for them.    You cannot possibly put this kind of action, nor the crusades into the  context of the teachings of Jesus/God.  I think he advocated a different  approach that was *by design* made to be appealing, to those called by him,  not chosen by a church practice.    It seems to me you have the cause and effect switched, the change comes  and then you get baptized.
He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
Coming from a long line of "hot tempered" people, I know temper when I see it.  One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.    We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were "spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries.   You don't need any enemies.  You already do yourselves the greatest harm.
David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes:  >>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.     >When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that >Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this >exactly places Mary beyond    Whoa, dude I don't see the jump you made. 		She was blessed, I'll give you that much. 		What do you mean, she was placed "beyond"       the sanctification of normal humanity.
In article <Apr.8.00.57.49.1993.28271@athos.rutgers.edu> marka@travis.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes: >In article <Apr.7.01.55.33.1993.22762@athos.rutgers.edu> kevin@pictel.pictel.com (Kevin Davis) writes: >>Many Christians believe in abstinence, but in a moment will be overcome >>by desire.  We all compromise and rationalize poor choices (sin).  Last >>week I was guilty of anger, jealousy, and whole mess of other stuff, >>yet I am forgiven and not condemned to suffer with AIDs.  To even >>suggest that AIDS is "deserved" is ludicrous. > >When man was told not to have sex with relatives, did they listen ? >NO! And man found out why !  So what's your point?  Mark's comment still is valid.  To suggest that AIDS is "deserved" IS ludicrous.  I sin.  I can resolve to abstain from  sin, and do weekly (more often, actually).  Yet I routinely fail. I surely do deserve what I get, yet God compassionately provided  the Incarnate Logos, Jesus, as a rememdy and a way out of our situation. If AIDS is deserved, I surely deserve instant death just as much, as do we all, as St. Paul so cogently remids us.  To willingly judge "others" as deserving punishment seems to me to be the height of arrogance and lack of humility.     >I wonder if AIDS would be a problem now if people didn't get >involved in deviant sexual behaviour. Certainly, people who >received tainted blood are not to blame. But it just goes >to show that all mankind is affected by the actions of a few.  So what's the point here?  I can get AIDS and NEVER engage in "deviant" sexual behavior.  In fact, I could engage in LOTS of deviant sexual behavior with HIV+ people and never be infected.  AIDS is a consequence of particular behaviors, many of which are not sexual.  And not all sexual behaviors carry the risk of transmission.     >In addition, IMHO forgiveness is not the end of things. >There is still the matter of atonement. Is it AIDS ? >I don't know.  The end of all things is to know, love and serve God, growing daily closer through prayer, meditation and discipline.  Even so I could get AIDS.  Anyone could, unless they remain forever celibate, IV-drug-free, and transfusion free.  Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --
In article <Apr.13.00.08.04.1993.28376@athos.rutgers.edu>,  mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: >  > In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu>  heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes: > > > >	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do > >have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a > >pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior > >who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the > >last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods > >anyway? >  > I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it. > It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows > when the second coming will take place. >  > --  > :-  Michael A. Covington  I do recall Watt making a comment to this effect, though it was quite a few years back and I can't cite the specifics.  I also recall that Cecil Andrus, who was Secretary of the Interior during the Carter Administration, responded to Watt's comments by pointing out the stewardship role that God gave to man, as recorded in Genesis.  Which makes me wonder: who are the true conservatives?  It seems to me that a *conservative* should want to *conserve* things of value for long-term societal benefit.  This form of *conservation* should logically extend to the physical environment in  which people live, as well as the moral environment in which they relate to one another and to God.  IMHO, Watt's stewardship status is not enhanced by the fact that he served  on the board of directors for Jim Bakker's organization, during a time in  which Bakker committed criminal acts which eventually landed Bakker  in federal prison.
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:  >If I talk with an atheist and tell him the New Testament is an historically  >reliable document, what reasons would I give him?    I have found that this isn't a very effective argument.  Most atheists are perfectly willing to acknowledge the existence and ministry of Jesus--but are quite capable of rationalizing the miracles and the resurrection into  misunderstandings, hoaxes, or simple fabrications.  They can always make an analogy with the _Iliad_, a book that tells the story of the historical Trojan War, but also talks about gods and goddesses and their conversations.   I don't think it's possible to convince atheists of the validity of  Christianity through argument.  We have to help foster faith and an understanding of God.  I could be wrong--are there any former atheists here who were led to Christianity by argument?
(Dear Moderator: Would you add this to the BCC faq?)  In case there are any ex-members of the "Boston Church of Christ" looking for a support organization, here's the number of "BostonEX" in Burlington, MA: 617-272-1955.  --------  s.r.c readers in New England may be interested in seeing a series of news reports about the BCC in the 6 pm nightly news on Channel 5 (WCVB, Boston), for the next few days (starting Wed, 5/19).
REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:  >We can jillustrate this by pointing to the way God administers His judgment.  >In the OT, sins were not forgiven, but rather covered up.  In the age of the >Church not only are sins forgiven (taken away), but the power of SIN is put to >death.  ...  My, this distinction seems quite arbitrary.    Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sin is covered.   (Ps. 32:1).  and quoted by the apostle Paul:    Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God   imputeth righteousness without works,   Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins   are covered.   Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.  (Rom. 4:6-8)  The biblical perspective seems to be that foregiveness and covering are parallel/equivalent concepts in both testaments.  The dispensational distinction is unwarranted.  >        During the millenium, we read that sins are dealt with immediately >under the present (ie that Christ is present on earth) rulership of Christ.  I'm sure Rex has Scripture to back this up.  You're suggesting Jesus is going to travel around dealing with individual violations of His law -- for millions perhaps billions of people.  Such activity for Moses the lawgiver was considered unwise (cf. Ex. 18:13ff).  It makes for interesting speculation, though.  I'll leave comments on the so-called "bema seat" vs. "throne" judgments to someone else.  This also seems like more unnecessary divisions ala dispensationalism.
In article <May.16.01.56.14.1993.6674@geneva.rutgers.edu> sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson) writes: > >As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't >christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on >earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian >discussion list ? > I find this remark to be awfully arrogant.  I would venture to  say that there are many people who are Christians now, who at one point in their lives had no intention of ever becoming a Christian. I was certainly one such person.  I am quite thankful that there  were Christians who were willing to continue to talk to me, despite the appearance that it might have been a waste of their time and  mine.  (I even married one of them.)
whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes,  > I see no other way of interpreting them other than homosexuyality > being wrong.  Please tell me how these verses can be interpreted in > any other way.  I read them and the surrounding text.  But that is exactly what I was asking. If the Homosexual community (is that the proper term?) has decided that Christianity is not against Homosexual  behaviour but rather condones it then how do they interpret these verses. I guess what I am really looking for is a "homosexual" response.