HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@ektools.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: America & Xianity
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:26:06 GMT
Reply-To: nobody@kodak.com
Organization: Eastman Kodak

In article <Jan.25.00.31.35.1993.4377@athos.rutgers.edu> julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>
>It may come as a surprise but people have been arrangin abortions since
>Egyptian times: the only difference is that now the mother usually survives.
>Ditto with homosexuality, it has always been around just not talked about.
>

I don't think it is really a surprise to anyone.  But this feable
argument has been raised many times.  So here is a surprise for you.
Talking about things isn't the problem, but changing your values to
accept them is.  Murder has been around for a long time too.  Should we
accept that as a viable means to solve our problems.  People are always
going to sin.  That doesn't mean we need to change the meaning of sin to
fit our actions. 


>We all recognise that human reason is limited and prone to errors. I
>certainly don't make claims for my reasoning ability compared to God's.
>BUt I find it hard to think he gave me this ability to test me so
>that I have to mistrust everything reason tells me. Why make humans at all
>then, surely unthinking dogs would be better creatures to be redeemed.
>

This is a pretty self centered view of things.  You are not here for
your sake.  You are hear for God.  He gave you reason, not to redefine
the rules of his creation, but to find your way to love and glorify Him.
You see love that is forced isn't really love.  It has to be your
choice.  Without reason, you wouldn't have a choice. Instead of arguing
the technical aspects of right and wrong, try this litmus test:  Is it
an act of love for God and does it glorify God ?  Use your reason to
answer these questions, and if you are sincere, you will discover what
is right and wrong.
From: cbc1@ra.msstate.edu (christopher b carey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bye-bye Home Bible Studies
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:25:16 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

> In article <Jan.17.01.20.17.1993.3624@geneva.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucs
> .edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>
>      I know that such zoning laws did get passed in Colorado Springs
> several years back.  One guy had set up a home Bible Study fellowship that
> was meeting in his basement every Sunday morning and the city made him
> stop.  I gather the neighbors were complaining about all the cars parked
> on the street.


If the city were to use the same logic for all private gatherings, it could
require a homeowner to have a liquor permit if the homeowner offered his guest
a drink.  

I can't believe that this kind of legislation hasn't been taken to trial.
I understand about the car thing, if the streets aren't very wide.  The cars
could range from 30 to 8 or so.

Anyway.

Chris Carey
-- 
Got those wishing I was out of school so I could see my girl on
a regular basis blues.
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is God male, female or neither?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:28:45 GMT
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin

In article <Jan.26.04.48.41.1993.15138@athos.rutgers.edu> I2LY@cornella.cit.cornell.edu (Fiona) writes:

>The very
>concepts of male and female seem to me to be inaliebly linked to the
>existence of a body (can you tell I'm a biologist?).  Thus it seems
>meaningless to me to say God is male.  OF course, the bible talks
>about God as male, but it would be even more incorrect IMHO to talk about
>God as 'it' than 'He', since this would deny the personal nature of God.
>But i really don't see the problem with She, and it seems to me that Bill
>was contradicting himself when he first pointed out that God does not have
>a gender and then saying 'but you have to use He, not She'.  Of course
>the bible does refer to God as HE, but we are certainly not forbidden from
>saying 'she'.

I think the most compelling reason to assume that God is male is when
Jesus refered to God as "Father".  Even when Jesus taught his disciples to
pray, he taught them to address God as "Father".  

It seems to me that one of the main reasons people take exception to calling
God a male, is that somehow that gives males on this earth superiority.
Although that may be true in some people's minds, I think that's a pretty
shallow reason for wanting to call our Father in Heaven "She".  Just
because God is male and I am male does not make me more like God.  What
makes me more like God is Jesus Christ, not anything that I do.  Maybe 
since I am male, I can't understand why it's such a big deal that God
is gender-neutral.
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bye-bye Home Bible Studies
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:48:22 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <Jan.15.12.06.48.1993.10848@athos.rutgers.edu> short@seismo.css.gov (Tom Short) writes:
>Dear Fellow Christians,
>
>     What's going on in San Diego???  I heard just recently that a law 
>has been passed that makes it illegal to hold a Bible study in ones' own 
>home! The reasoning for this, as I understand it, is the separation of 
>church and state issue.  Apparently their thinking is you are inviting 
>people to your home, which is located in a residential neighborhood, and 
>having a Bible study.  Therefore your home is now a church.  
>
>     You could use that same train of thought on the following two
>     examples:
>
>1)   You invite people over to watch a movie.  Your home, located in a 
>     residential neighborhood, has just become a movie theater!  
>
>2)   You have some friends over and order pizza.  You all chip in to pay 
>     for it.  You sit down at the table, or in front of the T.V., and eat.  
>     Your home, located in a residential neighborhood, is now a restaurant.    
Similarly:  years ago, a group of lesbian activists (approximately 10 to 20
on any given night) used to meet in a house near me.  A local
Christian church heard about this, and immediately brought
various pressures against the lesbian group in order to break
it up.  The church claimed that violations of zoning laws were
occurring, that the additional traffic constituted a "parade"
and needed a permit, and that the lesbian group needed to
buy an expensive insurance policy to protect the 
neighbors from possible damages caused by sidewalk protests
(protests organized by the church itself!).

The expense of fighting these legal roadblocks finally
"encouraged" the lesbian group to meet in a nearby town.

Even though I am not a Christian, it is totally idiotic
to try to ban home bible study.  Many socially active
groups, and some not so active, suffer this type of
harassment.  There is nothing especially oppressive
about the (rumored) San Diego law; it is part of the
normal daily oppression that millions suffer.

It all depends on whose oxen are gored.
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: a correction (was: Re: ARMSTRONGISM)
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:43:38 GMT
Reply-To: norris@mit.edu
Organization: l'organisation, c'est moi

In article <Jan.21.03.37.30.1993.17115@athos.rutgers.edu>, markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
|> In article <Jan.20.00.03.40.1993.697@geneva.rutgers.edu> rpitts@darth.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> >In article <Jan.17.22.52.17.1993.3962@geneva.rutgers.edu> norris@mit.edu writes:
|> >Christian Research Institute (CRI): They are very conservative

Excuse me, but I didn't say this.  It must be someone else's comment
attributed to me by mistake.  My posting merely suggested the original
questioner contact CRI for info on Armstrongism. 
 
---
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
250,000 marched for life in DC on Friday!
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph W. Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (1-20)
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:19:07 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Wednesday, January 20:

     For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the 
world, that I should bear witness to the truth.  <John 18: 37>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.  NOW LOOKING FOR A JOB!
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about Joseph
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:19:27 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

JEFF@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jeff Brooks) writes:

>If the "brothers of Jesus" were his younger brothers, one would still
>have to explaing the SHOCKING (at the time) lack of respect shown
>when these younger brothers advised their older brother what to do!
>Based as much on that as on the Passion scene, I have to conclude that
>the brothers of Jesus were, strictly speaking, his cousins or other,
>older male relatives.

It doesn't seem shocking that they would try to tell their older brother
what to do -- they thought (at the time) that he was loony.
-- 
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:23:47 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <Jan.25.00.39.47.1993.4525@athos.rutgers.edu>, cnews@umr.edu (UMR Usenet News Post) writes:
> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:
> 
> >If God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does He allow sufferings
> >to exist?  Why did He create humankind with the propensity for
> >Greed, Hatred and Delusions and then allow us to murder and harm
> >each other?
> 
> 
> Simple?  I would recommend the book "The Problem of Pain"
> by C.S. Lewis.

Also check out 'The Silence of God' by Sir Robert Anderson. I'm half
through reading it, and it seems good so far...

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
    E-MAIL: david-s@ifi.hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Adultery, non-marital sex, and forgiveness
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:08:13 GMT
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman

In article <Jan.20.00.10.37.1993.858@geneva.rutgers.edu>  
jcj@tellabs.com writes:
> But how can a Christian ask that his/her trespasses
> be forgiven as those who trespass against him/her if they won't forgive 
> his/her spouse (even for adultery)?  If we should judge not lest we be 
> judged, how can we say that an adulterer is any worse than any of us?  
> What about not casting the first stone?  What am I missing here?  


 The law establishes what you have the right to do in the OT or NT,  
but your attitude should be of love and forgivness.  God has the  
right to condem everyone to Hell.  It is His right  but He dosen't.  
He just says to love and follow Him and you shall have everlasting  
life.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan
From: psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Violating Christian's rights
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:28:18 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University

max@cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:

[...]

>Here we come to my point. The abortion issue is one symbolic
>issue  around which the religious right has gathered, but it
>has become clear that the majority simply  will  not  accept
>illegalization  of  abortion.

	This characterization is incomplete.  The majority of people
	will not accept an outright ban on abortions, but is more than
	willing to ban them for specific reasons (like sex selection).
	The polls indicate that the majority of Americans are willing
	to accept some abortion restrictions, but not all.

>So,  they  began  looking for
>another issue.

	Due to your mischaracterization of the majority, I doubt that this
	conclusion is accurate.

>I recall hearing a republican  mention  that,
>and saying that the abortion issue had lost it's luster, and
>that he expected the anti-gay rights struggle to be  a  much
>better rallying point.

	One republican does not a religious right make.

>He is wrong. To nonchristians (+many  christians)  here  and
>the  world over, it looks like exactly what it is - a way to
>gather political power by evoking ignorant fears, and bully-
>ing a despised minority.

	See my sig below for a comment upon what things look like vs.
	what they really are.

	It is quite common for individuals who have a dearly held position
	to brook no opposition to that position, no matter how reasonably
	and civilly the flaws of that position are discussed.  Those who
	therefore make the claim that their concerns have to do with
	establishing minority priviledges for a minority which still remains
	largely hidden (and therefore hard to identify, thus making true
	redress of wrongs problematical) are accused of "bullying".

	Likewise, those who are
	openly gay in the face of religious conservatives are accused of
	"bullying".  "Bullying" seems to be a common facet of human nature;
	it is not, however, a facet of the nature of Christ, whose life-
	style all Christians are called to apprehend for themselves.


We read the world wrong		| Phil Buckland
and say that it deceives us.	| psb@eece.ksu.edu
Tagore, from Stray Birds	| psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu

[This discussion is moving in a direction that I'm not going to allow.
I'm willing to talk about the issues of legislating Christianity,
however discussions about "special rights for homosexuals" have proven
particularly unproductive, and I'm not inclined to allow either that
or discussion of abortion politics specifically.  --clh]
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about Joseph
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:37:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

John is precisely the gospel which most clearly redefines the meaning of
"brother".  Jesus' family is never mentioned in that gospel; the story of
Jesus placing Mary into John's care is a way of emphasizing the new family
of the christian community over the old family ties.

The passages in Mark [6:3] and Matthew [13:55] that mention Jesus' brothers
and sisters are used by Jesus to redefine the relationships.  Implicit in
Jesus' teaching is a contrast to the conventional assumption that blood ties
are what define family.

I still see no need to complicate the discussion.

D. Andrew Kille
GRADUATE THEOLOGICAL UNION
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: What are the Triads?  Who are the Irvingites?
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:02:18 GMT

On <24 Jan 1993 16:09> John Baskette said to All :

 JB>He attempted to support his ideas in part by appealing to the 
 JB>following:
 JB>
 JB>1.  "The Triads" which concerns a debate, "Gregory Palamas 
 JB>against Barlaam",
 JB>    and concerns some signs and wonders performing monks called 
 JB>the 
 JB>    Heseychistis?  He was speaking so I am not sure about the 
 JB>correct
 JB>    spellings.
 JB>
 JB>2.  Edward Irving and the Irvingites.
 JB>
 JB>What do any of you out there know about either of these two 
 JB>subjects.
 JB>I have heard of the Irvingites but know nothing about them.  I 
 JB>am not
 JB>familiar with the Triads.

The Hesychasts were a group of Orthodox monks, mainly from Mount Athos in 
Greece, who emphasised prayer, and said that those who prayed earnestly would 
be able to see the light of the transfiguration of Christ on mount Tabor, the 
uncreated light of the eighth day. They also emphasised apophatic theology, 
the so called "negative way". This means that we cannot say for certain what 
God _is_ in his essence. God does not reveal his essence to us, but reveals 
himself by his energies (such as the light of the transfiguration). Barlaam 
rejected these ideas, but ultimately the Church upheld Gregory Palamas and 
the Heysychasts. This is an oversimplification, so please don't take what I 
have said at face value. I do not see the connection between Hesychasm and 
the "word of faith" movement, and would be interested in knowing more.

The Irvingites were a movement in the 19th century, started by a Presbyterian 
minister, Edward Irving, who had the vision of a restored apostolic ministry. 
He started the Catholic Apostolic Church, which believed that the church 
should be led by twelve apostles. After Irving's death the movement split, 
and there is now an Old Apostolic Church and a New Apostolic Church as well. 
Some believe that apostles can continue to be appointed, but the original 
Catholic Apostolic Church has almost died out, as the twelve apostles 
appointed in Irving's time died. You will find more information in a book 
called "A message to the charismatic movement" by Larry Christensen.

 JB>I would be interested in hearing what anyone has to say about 
 JB>the 
 JB>kenotic theory and the word of faith movement theology.  It 
 JB>would be
 JB>nice to have an intelligent summary of the word of faith 
 JB>teachings 
 JB>from someone who understands and believes them.

I understand, to put it very crudely, that some say that God's sinless son 
became poor so that his sinful sons could become rich. 

That is probably a distortion of the teaching, but insofar as the teaching 
actually proclaims that, I believe it is a distortion of the gospel.

Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa
P O Box 392
Pretoria
0001 South Africa

Fidonet: 5:7101/22.5
Internet: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5..fidonet.org
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A beginner's question
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:32:51 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.

In article <Jan.22.03.47.52.1993.6062@athos.rutgers.edu> ross@cc.gatech.e
u (Rosario DSouza, J) writes:
>Hi,
>
>I am a relatively new Christian, and I have the following question.
>
>Some people tell me that some parts of the Bible should be taken
>literally, and some parts should not. My question is: how does one
>discern which parts are to be taken literally and which should not?

        Personally I would say to try for the most literal reading
possible (PESHAT in Hebrew) as the primary understanding of a passage. 
Often times a passage that is not meant literally will tell you the
meaning of the symbols contained within it.  For example Peter's vision of
the sheet, it is not food being spoken of but Peter says it was speaking
of non-Jews.  Look for explanations like that.
From: gideon@farli.otago.ac.nz (Gideon King)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: New Earth
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:54:09 GMT
Reply-To: gideon@farli.otago.ac.nz

In article <Jan.17.01.16.30.1993.3571@geneva.rutgers.edu>  writes:
! At the end of time, God will destroy the old heaven and the old earth. 
! He will create a New Heaven and a New Earth with a New Jerusalem.  Does
! anyone know the significance of the New Earth??????
! 
! My assumption(and I could be wrong) is that those names written in the
! Book of Life will live with the Lord in Heaven.  Who and what will be on
! the New Earth?
! 
! William K. Motley
! 
! [My impression is that the new Jerusalem is really part of heaven.
! After all, it has no temple because God himself is its temple, and he
! provides its light.  Christians believe in resurrection, not just
! survival of a bodiless soul.  This implies a certain structure to
! existence that is material or at least analogous to the material
! world.  I believe the last few chapters of Rev. are describing a
! vision of this existence, where we live directly in God's presence.
! I'm always wary of pushing its details too far, because I doubt it's
! something that could be described very accurately in words.  Thus I
! have the feeling we're seeing very symbolic and metaphorical language.
! --clh]

It's talking about the new heaven as the new system of rulership and the  
new earth as the new system for the people on the earth. This type of  
language (heaven=rulership, earth=people) is used in numerous places  
throughout the Bible. New Jerusalem is where the rulership is based.  
Proofs available on request. Yes, Rev. does provide a picture of the  
Kingdom of God, and it takes quite a bit of comparing scripture with  
scripture to understand the symbology (I don't purport to understand all  
of it), but you can easily get the outline by reading it over - all  
nations going to Jerusalem to worship God and His son, Jesus Christ, the  
ruler of the earth (and those who don't getting no rain, or in the case of  
Egypt where they get no rain, there would be plagues) etc... I don't have  
time to write about it now - perhaps later, when I have time to put in  
full scriptural proofs of everything I say.

--
========================================================================== 
=====
                                    |
Gideon King                         | Phone +64-3-479 8347
University of Otago                 | Fax   +64-3-479 8529
Department of Computer Science      | e-mail gideon@farli.otago.ac.nz
P.O. Box 56                         |
Dunedin                             | NeXT Mail preferred
From: aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew N. Westmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is God male, female or neither?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:33:49 GMT

Hey all,

     Just a little note.  I translated St Mark from the original Greek
in high school, and the word "God" is always used in the male form. 
There is a female form, although to my knowledge it never occurs in the
Bible.  I do not know if there is a neuter form (I have never seen that
anywhere).

     Regardless, I think gender is an attribute which is not especially
applicable to God.  Might as well call God a "he."  I don't think God
would care either way.  Calling God a "she" seems to be creating a
gender for God, whereas calling God "he" is just following the Biblical
text literally.  JMHO.


Andrew Westmeyer
aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu

Carnegie Mellon University
Materials Science and Engineering

Reality is objective.
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: In search of Religion
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:22:41 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Jan.26.03.48.42.1993.14262@athos.rutgers.edu> 
readyja@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Jeffrey A Ready) writes:
>I am a man in search of a religion that suits me best.  I believe in God,  
>and I also believe that Jesus is the son of God.  I don't take the Bible  
>literally.  I don't believe that non-christians always go to hell.  I  
>believe in evolution.  I believe in the Big-Bang.  I believe in other  
>intelligent life in the universe.  

I have always been under the impression that one starts with religion,
and derives beliefs from it; not the other way around.

[I took him as meaning "religion" in an organizational sense: here's
what I believe, do you know of any denominations where I would fit in?
--clh]