waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:  >Hi Eddie, many people believe the battle described in Rev 12:7-12 >describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and his fall to the >earth. >Shalom,                             Len Howard  Luke 10:16-18  He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth  me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.  And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the  devils are subject unto us through thy name.  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
In article <Apr.15.00.58.33.1993.28906@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:  [FAQ and Darius' response deleted]  >Darius  >[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I >think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is >probably all that needs to be said.  I accept that Darius is doing >what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally >accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing >their best to honor the Lord.  I am myself an SDA and I am in total agreement with what Darius has to say.   I also worship on Saturday to honor the Lord.  Your mention of "[esteeming]  all days alike" IMO has to do with the fast days observed by the Jews.  But  no matter how you interpret that passage, I do accept your worship on Sunday  as being done in honor of the Lord, in contrast with what many of my fellow  SDA believers may believe.  To me, though, the bible overwhelmingly points  to Saturday as the day to be kept in honor of creation and of God's  deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage.  To those who would  attempt to point out that my observance of Saturday is being legalistic,  this is simply not the case.  Rather, keeping Saturday allows me a full day  to rest and contemplate God's goodness and grace.  > >However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous >proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I >indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.  >Similarly with 1 Cor 16:2.  It says >that on the first day they should set aside money for Paul's >collection.  Now if you want to believe that they gathered specially >to do this, or that they did it in their homes, I can't disprove it, >but the obvious time for a congregation to take an offering would be >when they normally gather for worship, and if they were expected to do >it in their homes there would be no reason to mention a specific day.  The idea was introduced to me once that the reason Paul wanted the  Corinthians to lay aside money for the collection on the first day of the  week was because that was when they received their weekly wages.  Paul  wanted them to lay aside money for the collection as first priority, before  spending their money on other things.  I do not have any proof in front of  me for this though, although it would explain why they would lay aside money  in their homes instead of a meeting.    >So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day >of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.   > >I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements >is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian >worship was.  It would seem to me that you assume that the christians in the NT regularly  worshipped on the first day.  I assume that the christians in the NT  regularly worshipped on the seventh day.  But I agree with you that we only  have implications because the authors did assume the reader knew when worhip  was.
[Several people were involved in trying to figure out who first used the phrase "God-shaped hole".  --clh]  "There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us" (or something to that effect) is generally attributed to Blaise Pascal. What I want to know is how can you have a God shaped vacuum inside of you if God is in fact infinite (or omnipresent)?  ========================================================================= ||     Name: Andrew James Fraser  E-mail: fraseraj@dcs.gla.ac.uk       || ||     ESE-3H student, University of Glasgow.			       || ||     Standard disclaimers...                                         ||
I think it was Lewis who said that in a wedding, it's the principals   that marry each other; the church and the state are present merely as   witnesses.  ------------------------------------------------------------ Rob Steele                 In coming to understand anything  MIT Lincoln Laboratory    we are rejecting the facts as they 244 Wood St., M-203       are for us in favour of the facts Lexington, MA  02173      as they are.     617/981-2575                              C.S. Lewis
In article <May.12.04.29.37.1993.10035@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes: ... >       safety.  To the degree that means other than the death >       penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the >       peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred >       because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the >       final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.  Thanks for posting the exact wording which I had not seen previously. The part I quote above seems to me to indicate disapproval of capital punishment - it is to be used only when other means are not sufficient; I would say this is a stronger restriction than saying that capital punishment is useable when justifiable. I would certainly say there are cases where a crime justifies death (perhaps this is the Old Testament interpretation), but my reverence for life would say that I would oppose the actual infliction of the death penalty (a New Testament interpretation?). It is a matter for debate whether the death penalty works to keep the peace in a way that non-violent provisions do not. I don't believe it does, and I would certainly observe that in the USA, where you have the death penalty, there is a far higher murder rate than here in the UK, where we do not.
In the discussion as to why Jesus spoke aloud the "Lazarus, come out", I'm surprised that no one has noticed the verse immediately preceeding.  Jn 12:41  "Father, I thank you for listening to me, though I knew that you always listen to me.  But I have said this for the sake of the people that are standing around me that they may believe that you have made my your messenger."  (Goodspeed translation)  My guess is that the "Lazarus, come out!" was also for the sake of the crowd.
> But, haven't "all sinned, and come short of the glory > of God" (Romans 3:23)? > Those that cite this scripture to claim that even > babes require baptism neglect that "sin is not imputed > when there is no law" (Romans 5:13). > > Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending > God's laws they are not accountable for living them. > They are in the book of life and are not removed until > they can make a conscious decision to disobey God. > > A IDLER  If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."         What Christ did say was :          "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without          being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I          tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."  Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?
Gerry Palo writes:   > Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall  > of man occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of  > consciousness of the spiritual world.  This is discernable in  > the world outlooks of different peoples through history.  The  > Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land of  > the living than a king in the land of the dead."  (Iliad, I  > think).  I would not swear that nothing of the sort is found in the Iliad, but the first passage I thought of was the Odyssey 11:480 or thereabouts (my copy has no line numbers). The ghost of Acchilles speaks (Robert FitzGerald translation):   > Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand  > for some poor country man, on iron rations,  > than lord it over all the exhausted dead.  The next passage I thought of was from Ecclesiastes 9:4   + A living dog is better than a dead lion.   > On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in  > Christianity that originated most definitely in a pagan source.  > The idea that the human being consists essentially of soul  > only, and that the soul is created at birth, was consciously  > adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas dominated Christian thought  > for fifteen hundred years and still does today....  Surely Aristotle had little influence on Christian thought before about 1250 AD.
In article <May.7.01.09.36.1993.14545@athos.rutgers.edu> danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack) writes: >JEK@cu.nih.gov writes: >>The Apostle Paul (Romans 9:11) points out that God chose Jacob >>rather than Esau... If we admit the possibility that they had lived previous >>lives, and that (in accordance with the Asiatic idea of "karma") > >And following Romans to 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, >but Esau have I hated."  How could God have loved and hated (in the >past tense) those that are not yet born, neither having done good >or evil?  Woah...The context is about God's calling out a special people (the Jews) to carry the "promise."  To read the meaning as literal people is to miss Paul's entire point.  I'd be glad to send anyone more detailed explanations of this passage if interested.
In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:  >In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong [about believing   >in atheism].  Problem is, I will have to be _proven_ wrong.  In mentioning some nonsense about psychology :) and atheism, Bob Muir asks the following question.     >	Do I sound "broken" to you?  I answer in the affirmative.  Now this answer might sound a little intellectually dishonest to Bob, but I think I have been accused before of that heinous crime and am man enough to take it.  !-)  What thinking person has not at one time or other been accused of it?   Is it politically correct for Christians to be the only besieged group permitted the luxury of arrogance?     Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  I have a  difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something about the subject.       Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says  he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste  my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it.  In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me.   Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.
vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes: >In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes: > > ... > > > >Are all truths also absolutes? > >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)? > > > >If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can  > >explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and > >which truths are absolutes.   >  > The answer to both questions is yes.  Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then.  To me, an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture, situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree with this definition?  I think you do:  > Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a  > contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always > true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a > contradiction in terms.    A simple example:  In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover their heads in church.  Now, this is scripture.  By your definition,  this is truth and therefore absolute.    Do women in your church speak?  Do they cover their heads?  If all  scripture is absolute truth, it seems to me that women speaking in and  coming to church with bare heads should be intolerable to evangelicals.   Yet, clearly, women do speak in evangelical churches and come with bare  heads.  (At least this was the case in the evangelical churches I grew  up in.)  Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture  to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.) Can you reconcile this?  > Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world.  Such a > statement is terribly self-contradictory.  Let me put it to you this > way.  If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement, > "There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?  Obviously, we have a > contradiction here.  I don't claim that there are *no* absolutes.  I think there are very few, though, and determining absolutes is difficult.  > This is just one of the reasons why Christians defy the world by claiming > that there are indeed absolutes in the universe.  > >There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical  > >Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding  > >Biblical interpretation. >  > So?  People sometimes disagree about what is true. This does not negate  > the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe.    But you are claiming that all of Scripture is absolute.  How can you determine absolutes derived from Scripture when you can't agree how to interpret the Scripture?    It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based  on your own *interpretation* is absolute.  Do you deny that your own background, education, prejudices, etc. come into play when you read the  Bible, and determine how to interpret a passsage?  Do you deny that  you in fact interpret?
Gerry Palo wrote that there is nothing in Christianity that excludes the theory of a succession of lives.  I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of anything that either child had done, since they had not been born yet.  Clearly, Paul does not believe that they had had previous lives, nor does he suppose that his readers will believe it. For if they had had previous lives, it would not make sense to say, "Neither of them has done anything good or bad as yet, since they are not yet born."  Daniel Cossack writes to ask whether it is fair for God to hate Easau when Esau has done nothing bad?  I reply that in Hebrew it is standard usage to speak of hating when what is meant is simply putting in second place. As an example, consider the saying in Matthew 6:24   + No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one  + and love the other, or....  Now, it is obviously false that a man with two masters must hate one of them. But it is obviously true that he must put one of them in second place. A dog that always comes when either Billy or Bobby calls will have a problem if they stand in different places and call simultaneously. It cannot give first priority to both. One must take second place. In our original example, second place means that Jacob, not Esau, is chosen to bear the covenant blessing and obligation, and to be the ancestor of Christ.       *****     *****     *****     *****     *****  Eugene Bigelow mentions Matthew 11:14 which says of John the Baptist:   + And if ye will receive it, this is ELijah, who was to come.  I take this to mean that John was an Elijah-like figure, dressing and living like Elijah, preaching like Elijah, and fulfilling the prediction that Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah.  I do not think that he was Elijah in a literal sense, and, appareently, neither did he (John 1:21).
: [I have some qualms about postings like this.  You might want to : engage in a bit more conversation with Joel before deluging  : someone who doesn't expect it with cards.  --clh]  I'd suggest that more than _some_ qualms are in order.  Without knowing anything about the situation, it is impossible to evaluate the appropriateness of writing.  Some folks will check, others with more zeal than time may not.  IMHO, requests of this nature should be made only for oneself or for someone who knows and approves of the idea.  Otherwise, it is intrusive and disrespectful of the individual.
Marida Ignacio writes:     STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:    "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.    Blessed art thou amongst women".     Even Mary was confused about this greeting.
muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:  >> But, haven't "all sinned, and come short of the glory >> of God" (Romans 3:23)? >> Those that cite this scripture to claim that even >> babes require baptism neglect that "sin is not imputed >> when there is no law" (Romans 5:13). >> >> Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending >> God's laws they are not accountable for living them. >> They are in the book of life and are not removed until >> they can make a conscious decision to disobey God. >> >> A IDLER  >If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible >ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know >right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised." >        What Christ did say was :  >        "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without >         being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I >         tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."  >Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?  (I presume you are quoting John 3:3-7.)  1.  My King James Bible says "Except a man be born of water  and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"  (John 3:5).  (Here "man" == "adult"). (However, this could be a quibble between translations.)  2.  We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing: "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7).  Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks to Nicodemus -- a ruler of the Jews (not a child).  3.  We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even  introduce the concept of spiritual re-birth through baptism if newborn babies weren't free from sin?  A IDLER
Correction:    |The story I related is one of the seven apparitions   |approved by our Church as worthy of belief.  It happened   |in La Salle, France.   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  That should be La Salette, France, 1846. I must admit, geography is not my forte.    |[...]    |Once again, the Lamb succeeds.
In article <Apr.21.03.25.03.1993.1292@geneva.rutgers.edu> salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) writes:  >I like those lyrics, >since whenever I am approached by judgemental, pharisitical, >evangelical fundamentalists who throw the Bible at me because >I have long hair, wear a black leather jacket, and listen to Black >Sabbath, I have something to throw back....  >It just goes to show that there are more important evils in the >world to battle than rock lyrics...........   It just goes to show that not all evangelical fundamentalists are pharisitical! I wear a black leather jacket, like classic rock, but no longer have the long locks I once had.  However,  I too rely upon the Bible as a basis for Christian ethics.
|> Imagine the worst depth of despair you've |> ever encountered, or the worst physical pain you've ever experienced. |> Some people suffer such emotional, physical, and mental anguish |> in their lives that their deaths seem to be merciful. But at least |> the pain does end in death. What if you lived a hundred such lives, |> at the conclusion of one you were instantly reborn into another? |> What if you lived a million, a billion years in this state? |> What if this kept going forever?   Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. He lived ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is the above paragraph, then JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?  I'd be surprised to see the moderator let this one through, but I seriously want a reasonable explanation for this.
mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes: >(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the >Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so >(it would have discredited the Christians).  It is told in the Gospels that the Pharisees (sp.?) and scribes bribed the Roman soldiers to say that the Diciples stole his body in the night. Good enough excuse for the Jewish and Roman objectives (of that day).
OFM replies to a question on the multiplicity of translations of the bible,  >As far as I know, no Christians >believe that the process of copying manuscripts or the process of >translating is free of error.    Unfortunately, this isn't true.  On another news group earlier this year, someone posted that the King James Bible was the divinely inspired version of the Bible in English and was, therefore, inerrant; all other English translations were from Satan, trying to deceive the body of Christ.  A few years ago, the pastor of a church I was attending showed me a poster advertising the availability of a certain man to address congregations. Very prominantly on the poster was the fact that the man used only the KJV. The idea that the KJV is THE English Bible is more prevalent than many might think.    -- Scott at Brandeis
In article <Apr.9.01.11.35.1993.16957@athos.rutgers.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: > But, since the manuscripts are so close to the actual event, especially as  > compared with ancient "non-Christian" history, could it help show that we have > accurate copies of the original texts?    That's a very weak argument--due the lack (with regard to critical events) of independent supporting texts.  As for the dating of the oldest extant texts of the NT....  How would you feel about the US Civil War in a couple of thousand years if the only extant text was written about *now*?  Now adjust for a largely illiterate population, and one in which every copy of a manuscript is done by hand....  	--Hal
news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:  >True.  >Also read 2 Peter 3:16  >Peter warns that the scriptures are often hard to understand by those who >are not learned on the subject.  Where do insparations/Miracles fit in?  I was a new reader to the bible and Qu'ran at the same time in my life and I can tell you that I would  have drifted in my faith if Those books were not exposed to me.    >Joe Moore