HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why do you thank God?
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:48:08 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

In article <Dec.17.00.11.56.1992.9735@farside.rutgers.edu> pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon) writes:
>
>	My question is "How do Christian determine what is God's
>wish and what is human's wish?"   Why do you thank God?

What do we have that was not given to us by God?  Or, put another way,
every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from the Father of
lights.

Now, the issue of "blaming" God for consequences of our sins is an
interesting one...

John
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: A Baby
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:49:44 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

Totally away from the weighty subjects usually discussed here, I
wanted to share with all of you the glorious news that my wife
and I are now the proud parents of a new baby boy.  Nicolas
Ascencio Cruz-Uribe was born 12/20/92, and life has been turned
upside down.  

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: lise@kepler.cc.bellcore.com (romanov,elizabeth)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 24 Dec 92 06:58:17 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ

In article <Dec.22.03.28.09.1992.13135@geneva.rutgers.edu> harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>
>While I am wary of speaking for all Christendom, I think that all
>Christians believe that Jesus *was* the Messiah for whom the Jews were
>waiting.  He was not recognized as such by most, mainly because they
>were expecting someone who would rebuild the physical temple and
>overthrow their Roman oppressors, rather than someone who would build a
>spiritual temple (the body of believers) and overthrow our *spiritual*
>oppressor, Satan.
>
>
Just for the record, this is not exactly why many religiously educated
Jews rejectthe claim that Jesus is Messiah.  Rather, they point to the
same prophecies that we enjoy at this season, for instance that the Messiah
would be Prince of Peace with an earthly dominion on His shoulder, and
that the time of His reign would be a time of peace and justice for all
people.  You can proselytize redemption all you want, but in fact the 
reign of peace and justice is not yet here.

Regards,
Lise
oscar.bellcore.com
From: mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage?  Just do it!References: <Dec.20.17.26.04.1992.22113@farside.rutgers.edu>Distribution:
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:27:22 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab

In article <Dec.20.17.26.04.1992.22113@farside.rutgers.edu> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:

   I believe that casual dating is wrong.  The sole purpose of dating is
   to assess whether or not to get married.  

Are there not other things one can do when dating besides this?  I'm
thinking of the pleasure of conversation, sharing movies, walks in the
park, holding hands in the moonlight...those are quite reasonable
things to do even if one isn't interested in marriage.

   If one is willing to perform
   acts which can lead to the birth of a child, I think one should be
   ready to make a lifelong commitment to marriage.  The Apostle Paul
   advised us that if we felt powerful sexual urges we should marry.
   This is not the same as playing around in a series of sexual
   relationships which have no future.

It is quite possible to date without having sex.  


--
Michael I. Bushnell      |     Watch, for you do not know when the master of 
+1 617 625 4518 (H)     -+-    the house will come, in the evening, or at
+1 617 253 8568 (W)      |     midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning, 
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Footnotes and References (Re: Help For Jehovah's Witnesses)
Date: 24 Dec 92 06:55:09 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

>I don't intend to get involved debating the scholarship of another's
>book, but I find the extensive notes and attributions (over one hundred
>in some chapters) of ...

This is something I have come across on numerous occassions.  Could someone
please explain to me why it is that some Christians (particularly 
Fundamentalists, it seems) consider the quality of a work to be measured in
the quantity of footnotes and size of bibliography?

[While footnotes may sometimes be the result of a spurious appearance
of scholarship, at least they give you some way of evaluating what the
writer's evidence is.  Of course good scholarship requires both a full
exploration of the evidence and good judgement in evaluating it.
Footnotes don't guarantee the latter.  --clh]
From: labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Song: When I least expected....
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:21:02 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

I am looking for the song titled: 'When I least expected' The beginning
words are " When I least expect you to show up, or to answer all
forgotten prayers"

Anybody know the artist of this song????


-- 
Thank You Very Much  
Joel R. Labson X5852
labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph W. Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (12-24)
Date: 25 Dec 92 09:22:14 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Thursday, December 24:

     Let the [elders] who preside in a fine way be reckoned worthy of
double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.
<1 Timothy 5: 17>

-- 
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: marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (Stuart W. Marlatt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Missions
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:10:25 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <Dec.22.03.29.46.1992.13167@geneva.rutgers.edu> phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman) writes:
>
> I would like to start a discussion on Missions that I hope will enlighten
>myself and others.(to enlighten me e-mail me and give hedrick a break!)
>
> My church is big on overseas missions. They seem so overjoyed at going
>overseas that they seem (at times) unconcerned with America. I believe
>this is dangerous. My belief is that we need to educate this country on
>the truth about Christ. Once we have gathered Christ's flock here,we can
>pull together and change the world for Christ.

While I would certainly agree that at its most fundamental all Christian
work begins at home, there are benefits to international missions. Apart
from the fact that God calls many into international missions while
their own neighborhoods are far from pure (so who are we to tell them to
stay), cross-cultural missions serve to protect Christianity from gathering
too much cultural baggage. Living in a, more-or-less, Christian rooted
nation, it is sometimes difficult to extract the Gospel from the Americanisms
we have hung all around it. Yes, this country desparately need to be
educated about Christ. Yes, we all have the responsibility to be salt 
and light whereever we find ourselves. Yes, America is also a mission
field. But don't be too surprised to find the missionaries to America
are coming from China, or Africa, or England. (No, I don't think we are
all called to go abroad - those who God calls to that service should go,
those who have not been so called should not. Those who stay here should
support (prayers and $) those who go, and those who go should built up
those who stay by their testimony of what God is doing in all parts of
the world.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God works in a mysterious way-                                            
The Church can sleep and eat at once.                                     
  --T.S. Eliot, The Hippopotamus                                          
..............................................................................
s.w. marlatt, <><  &  *(:-)               Prov. 25.2
University of Colorado:                   marlatt@spot.Colorado.edu  492-3939
National Center for Atmospheric Research: marlatt@neit.cgd.ucar.edu  497-1669
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wity@iastate.edu (Wity Ganda)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is Christianity the only way?
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:22:36 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

In article <Dec.22.03.32.00.1992.13211@geneva.rutgers.edu> phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman) writes:
>
> I have this image of God on judgement day....
>There is God with all his serenity and glory...
>An Indian(who died in 1100 a.d.) approaches him,with fear and trembling.
>Then our merciful father says,"Sorry sucker!!!ha ha ha!!!guess you really
>bet on the wrong horse chief!! Too bad you never heard about me but hey,
>thats life aint it??!!!!" ,and God pushes the reject button.
>Now seriously,If God is that unfair,then I,with all my sanctification through
>Christ will step off into the abyss with this unfortunate. 
>I will never have to do that,Jesus is fair(not just because he decides what
>is fair),and Jesus is above and beyond fair. I,who like all of you,would
>nail Jesus to the cross myself(I did it with my sin). Yet Jesus took my
>punishment,and gave me his reward.
 
> MR Shannon Saltzman

Well ... well.  Another discussion about _Predestination_.  8-)
I used to have the same opinion like you, until I learned more about 
predestination.
That Indian (and others) can not say to God that God is unfair.
The salvation given to us is by grace only.  What is the meaning of 'grace'?
It means 'not qualify to accept'.  Because all of us do not qualify to
accept the salvation, those that do not receive it, CAN NOT say that God is 
unfair.

I have some good articles about 'predestination'.  They are quite long,
if anyone wants it, just e-mail me.  There is a good book "Chosen by God" too,
which I don't remember the author's name right now.  :-(

Merry Christmas to all of you.
-- 
+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+
|  Wity Ganda                    |  wity@iastate.edu                    |
|  Iowa State University         |  as101@cleveland.freenet.edu         |
+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage?  Just do it!
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:50:48 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>I believe that casual dating is wrong.  The sole purpose of dating is
>to assess whether or not to get married.

Depends upon how you define dating, etc.  Possibly the second sentence
should start "I believe that..."  Otherwise you end up condemning
study dates, dates with your cousin so you can go to the prom,
dates with people you don't really like anyway, dates where you
just go and have dinner with a friend.  I consider all of those
"casual" dates.

>The Apostle Paul
>advised us that if we felt powerful sexual urges we should marry.

Maybe simpler just to abstain.  And marry "who"?  The object
of the urges?  What if it is someone you can't/shouldn't marry?
(this may be considered adultery in the heart, depending upon
if you have the ability to turn the urges off and on).
(Personally, it's a bit angering to be commanded to go out and
marry someone, as if all that were required were for me to
snap my fingers)

>I see no reason why two people who are ready for marriage can't decide
>in a day that they are suited for each other, and therefore
>should become immediately engaged.

Ah, and how to you reach this mutual conclusion?  I would say
some sort of dating would help (with a chaperone if you're
queasy).  I would think you would need to discuss this first,
which implies the other person is more than a casual friend.

>When one encounters an unattached Christian who has wisdom and good
>character, don't miss the opportunity!

I agree with this fully.  I will concede that one disadvantage of
dating is that people tend to pretend a lot, making analysis of
good character, etc, hard to determine.

For the record, I'm no expert at dating :-)  But I find it much
easier to treat the fact that I'm single as just another fact of
life, rather than moping all day about it (and I've seen a lot of
people do that).
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    Strange things are afoot at the circle-K...
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Aquinas' Summa and Related Works
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:10:10 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Dec.20.17.29.30.1992.22145@farside.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

   A three-volume paper edition, English only, 1911 translation by the
   Dominican Fathers, is available for $150.00 (ISBN 0-87061-069-4)
   from

		Christian Classics
		Box 30
		Westminster, ND 21157
		1-800-888-3065
		  301-848-3065

   I don't know what kind of notes if any this has (anyone have it or
   seen it?).

I have the hardback set, ISBN 0-87061-063-5.

That's MD, not ND: Westminster, Maryland: not North Dakota.  The
edition I have is 5 volumes; the inside cover says that the 1948
edition was 3 volumes.  There is an analytical index in the last
volume, but no notes anywhere, just translated text.

If you really want that 30 volume set, I would bet that Loome
Theological Booksellers (Stillwater, Minnesota) has it used.
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christmas on the 25th.  Why?
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:49:13 GMT

On <22 Dec 1992 00:07> John W. Woolley said to All :

 JWW>The celebration of Christ's birth was set for December 25 in the
 JWW>Western Church largely because of a piece of early tradition that
 JWW>the Incarnation had happened on the first day of Spring (which seems
 JWW>symbolically appropriate, if historically doubtful); so the Feast of
 JWW>the Annunciation is March 25 (why the four-day discrepancy between
 JWW>that and March 21, the equinox, I don't guess), and the Feast of
 JWW>the Nativity nine months later on December 25.  Then, because 

Perhaps, as I've suggested before, because it was related to the Jewish New 
Year, which is normally on or around September 25 (see Luke 1:26). 

In the absence of any hard evidence, anything said about this topic is 
speculation, and so I freely admit that I am speculating. But we know that 
the celebration of the nativity became popular in the fourth century. We know 
that it coincided with the Arian controversy, so it seems reasonable to 
suggest that they may have been linked. The ending of persecution led to an 
interest in the places associated with Jesus's earthly life, including 
Bethlehem. My theory is that the priest in charge of the church at Bethlehem 
was looking for a suitable date for their annual bash (when they could also 
have a bash at the Arians) and did a bit of swotting up on the birth and 
infancy narratives in the relevant literature, hit on Luke 1:26, and with a 
bit of knowledge of the Jewish calendar and the average human gestation 
period, decided that December 25 was as good a day as any. 

That's just as speculative as any of the other explanations, but most of them 
seem to make a lot more assumptions. So why not use Ockham's razor, and 
choose the simplest until a better one comes along?

The moderator commented:

 JWW>that the Dictionary doesn't cite, but I'm frankly sceptical,
 JWW>particularly seeing the variety of explanations -- all of which 
 JWW>are
 JWW>described as fact without evidence.  Also, I think Jan 7 was
 JWW>originally a celebration of Jesus' baptism, not his birth.  --

It was January 6 (19th) that was the celebration of Jesus' baptism. 
January 7th (December 25th) was always the celebration of his birth. Those 
who celebrate the birth of Jesus on January 7th celebrate his baptism on 
January 19th, as Fr Woolley suggests. 

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@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Walter Martin (was: Help For Jehovah's Witnesses)
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:43:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

I first became interested in theological study while listening to
Walter Martin on a local radio station when I was in junior high
school, early in his career.  Martin stood out from the local radio
preachers: he seemed intellectually humble and recognized a whole
spectrum of practice and belief within the designation of Christian
orthodoxy and orthopraxis.  He did not seem to have a theological axe
to grind, but genuinely tried to de-mystify theological methodology
for the lay person.  Although he doesn't match my current concept of
an exemplary American Protestant theologian, I owe him something.

But I also recognize some of what bothers many readers of _Kingdom of
the Cults_.  For one thing, grouping such diverse groups together
under a single "cult" label is not quite fair to the diversity of the
groups he covers.  They stand in such profoundly different historical
relationships to the Christian mainstreams.  Second, he feels free to
select the quotations and interpretations that define the theological
bent of each "cult".  I don't think he's intentionally distorting, but
there is only the shallowest pretext of "dialoguing" with the
alternative viewpoints to clarify their positions before presenting
his own conclusions.  Third, he sometimes seems unaware of prior
public dialogues between the "cults" and the mainstream; for example,
the 1928 rebuttal of the accusation that Mary Baker Eddy plagiarized
from a text on Hegel are not even mentioned.  Christian Scientists see
this as an insult, since Martin freely quoted the earlier accusations.
(Martin's more substantive point of Eddy's gratuitous "borrowing" from
P. P. Quimby remains only partially answered, as far as I know.)

I think that members of non-mainstream groups have a point when they
claim that Martin misses their whole "gestalt".  His chapters on JW's,
LDS, etc. don't accurately convey what it is like to *be* a JW or an
LDS, not even one little bit.  Fair enough, but that wasn't what his
book was about.  Martin was initially responding to what he personally
considered to be deception and revisionism in the *proselytizing
tactics* of some heterodox fringe groups.  Many people, myself
included, think his brush was a bit too broad and his research slipped
in spots, but I don't see the "nastiness" in his writings that some
do, nor am I prepared to write him off entirely.  Of all those who
watch non-mainstream religious movements with a wary eye, he was far
from being their most uncharitable critic.



Van Kelly
vek@research.att.com
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There is no god
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:52:22 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey

Luis Somebody writes:

> If God were to exist, God would be a being amongst other beings, but the
> definition of God is that God is the creator of all finite being, this would
> imply that God is not a "being" but rather, that God is the ground of all
> beings. If anyone could prove the "existance" of God, or even have a
> definite knowledge of God, then he or she would have imposed a limit on God
> implying that God is a finite limited being, which goes contrary to any
> definition of God, since God is said to be infinite.

If you have a `definition' of God, then it seems to me that you are claiming
to have "definite knowledge of God" -- so, by this argument, you've put a
limit on God.  You have claimed to have such a definition.

Personally, I find the claim "An existence proof limits the thing it is proof
of" unfathomable.  If you'd care to demonstrate it, I'd be happy to see it.

In any case, all of this business about "the ground of all beings" completely
misses the point.  Yes, you can argue about the definitions of `existence'
all day, but that is not what people are talking about when they ask whether
God exists.

The eternal dispute between Christians and atheists can be described this way:

	Define the set U.  This is the set of everything.

The Christians claim that one element of this set, called `God', and it that
several things can be said about this element:

	a) It created all the other elements of this set.
	b) It is self-aware.
	c) It is extremely powerful.
	d) It is benevolent.

... and numerous other things.  The atheists do not believe that there is an
element which satisfies these conditions.


This is what they are talking about.  At this level of discussion, it doesn't
matter whether you want to argue about whether God exists in the same way a
paper cup exists -- the issue is whether there is any Creator _at all_.

Also, note that you can't say "God created the Universe and isn't part of it"
as a way out.  I did not say anything about the physical universe, or stars &
planets, or space, or anything else like that.  I described an abstract set
which includes everything -- not just physical stuff, but any spiritual
entities, ideas, `grounds of being', or anything else.

(Okay, so it doesn't include its own power set.  Bertrand, get thee behind
 me!  8-)

 *

It's both entertaining and enlightening to ponder questions of existence, but
it doesn't really get you anywhere in a dispute between Christians and
atheists.  The Christians hold certain things to be true; the atheists do not
believe them.  Discussions about the kind of existence God has doesn't really
help much when one party to the discussion doesn't believe there is any
Creator at all.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
From: kt6@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Your opinion is requested about important issues.
Date: 24 Dec 92 06:48:11 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Dear readers;

	I have been trying to decide how my talents can be best used so
 that we may live in a better and safer country.  I have even considered
 going into politics because it seems to be the best place to influence
 the course of this country.

	I would like to take a survey and find out what most people think
 important issues are so that I can decided what to concentrate my efforts in.   

1.  What do you think are the top 5 moral issues that face this country?


2.  What do you think are the top 5 social issues that face this country?

	Please reply to me directly and I will compile a top ten list from your replies.

Thanks

Kevin Torres
kt6@prism.gatech.edu
-- 

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!kt6
Internet: kt6@prism.gatech.edu