HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:30:32 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

will@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (William Fitzgerald) writes:

>  (bulloj@rpi.edu) wrote:
> : This is a general question about politics in the United States and
> : Christians. ...
> :  My question is, why is it that more "Evangelical 
> : Christians" tend to be very right-wing Republicans? I understand the
> : position on the abortion issue, but is that really the only reason
> : to support Republicans?
> 
> A good book to read on this subject is Ron Sider's _Rich Christians
> in an Age of Hunger_, which I believe is now in its 3rd edition.
> Sider discusses both the right-wing/Evangelical connection and 
> alternatives.  He's also been instrumental in creating alternative
> political organizations, including Evangelicals for Social Action, and
> JustLife (which has focussed on pro-life, anti-nuclear and 
> pro-justice issues).

Yes.  "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger" is not one of Intervarsity
Press's brighter moments.  Seems to me to display a terribly mercenary
cynicism on their part.  Sentimentalism sells books even when it is
exactly contrary to scripture.

Sider seeks to baptize a variety of ideas out of Marxist Socialism by
citing the Bible and tells us that we should feel guilty about the
blessings the Lord has showered on us because the Lord has not dealt as
bounteously with some other people.  I'm not sure how much of this is
in "Rich Christians..." but Sider's solution to hunger in the world is to
raise the United States income tax and send food from our government to
the governments of those hungry people.

A good book to read beside Sider's "Rich Christians..." is David
Chilton's "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators".  IVP
wouldn't publish it so it is a little harder to find.  It does do a more
thorough job of shining the light of scripture on Sider's ideas than
"Rich Christians..."  does.

"Productive Christians..." is a detailed, point by point, refutation of
the faulty exegesis in "Rich Christians...".

dan
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:50:37 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

Approvedreatristian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <Aug.30.03.10.42.1992.12700@athos.rutgers.edu>, dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick) writes:
> 
> Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 both contain the injunction, "Thou shalt
> not steal".  There doesn't seem to be an exception allowed for stealing
> with a ballot box.
> 
> The policies of our national government for a long time have been built
> on ideas of taking from those that have and giving to those that don't
> have.  

What about "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's"?

Isn't there room for both public *and* private charitable activity?
(For that matter--would there even *be* public activity of this type
if private charitable activity had been sufficient to satisfy needs?)

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Things to think about!
Date: 30 Aug 92 07:12:19 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

sryan@vivaldi.trl.oz.au (Simon Ryan) writes:

>     Essentially  everything  is reducable to  science. Likewise 
>everything  is  reducable to the physical.  There are  those  who 
>believe  in  a  distinction  between  physical  and  metaphysical 
>worlds.
...
>     With  these  thoughts in mind there is no need for  anything 
>metaphysical,  metaphysical  objects are constrained to laws just 
>as are the physical ones.  

You seem to confuse "metaphysical" with "spiritual".

Generalities that can be made from sens-able data is the realm of science
science (primary abstraction). Generalities about qualities that 
in themselves cannot directly be observed is the realm of 
(loosely) mathematics (secondary abstraction) (ie what is 4? 
what is triangle etc). about qualities that everything 
has in common (in particular, questions about being) are the domain
of being (tertiary abstraction). (You delve into metaphysics yourself
during your declaration.)

For example: at the moment of fertilization, two different things become
one thing. Science can observe and construct the mechanism of this, and
mathematics can count them before and after,  but metaphysics is what
is says this new one thing IS. (I'm not explaining this well.)

So you are not opposing science and metaphysics, rather you are opposing
the observable with the occult. But Christianity is notable for not
being an occult religion. It is based on observation: the apostle 
John say that his message is about "what we have heard about him, what 
our own eyes have seen of him; what it was that met our gaze, and the touch 
of our hands". 

People didn't just come up with these mad ideas about Jesus because they
were frightened by their mortality, and misguidedly suffered mass hysteria
in a pathetic attempt to survive after death (when they actually
should have been rutting like rabbits). Thousands saw him during his
life. Hundreds saw his death. Hundreds saw him after he rose from the
dead.

Christianity is the only credible explaination of their observations.
Fear of the great beyond might induce a certain level of religion
in some, but it wouldn't make someone see a man after his death,
and even touch his wounds. It wouldn't induce all the specific historical
claims Christians make about Jesus: born of a virgin, suffered, died,
buried, on the third day he rose again, etc.

-ricko
From: marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (Stuart W. Marlatt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Monks & Nuns?
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:01:42 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

My wife has been reading a book describing life in a convent,
and asked me which Christian sects have a history of supporting
various forms of religious orders, specifically nuns, but also
monks, etc. As I couldn't answer with any certainty, I thought
I'd ask the net...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me                                    
Shall I at least set my lands in order?                                   
  --T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land                                            
..............................................................................
s.w. marlatt, <><  &  *(:-)
University of Colorado:                   marlatt@spot.Colorado.edu  492-3939
National Center for Atmospheric Research: marlatt@neit.cgd.ucar.edu  497-1669
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: turtle@brahms.udel.edu (Anthony J Collins)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Baptismal Hair-Splitting (Was Re: And what *is* a Christian?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:22:29 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In response to Mark's posting on the Gaius story.  What is salvation
through faith?  Have 'we' redefined faith?  For even the demons believe
that Jesus Christ is Lord.  So is the demons' faith goint to save them?
NOT....

Faith is more than believing; it is ACTION.

Tony
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Clinton & Gore
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:28:02 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Sep.1.03.14.19.1992.13353@athos.rutgers.edu>, stngiam@athena.mit.edu (Shih-Tung Ngiam) writes:
>  As the "Christian Politics" thread develops, there is a question I'd
>like to ask.  The media reports that Governor Clinton is Baptist.  I'm
>wondering whether he is Southern Baptist.

Yes.  I think Al Gore is as well.

>  Going back in time, President Carter described himself as a born-again
>Christian, if my memory serves me right.  His policies would not have
>been approved of by today's Fundamentalist Christians.

So.  Are you implying that, because his views went against those of the vocal
portion of "Fundamentalist Christians," that he was not what he claimed to be?
There tends to be this monolithic stereotype of "born-again Christians"; i.e.,
we all think the same things.  It is not true.  There is great diversity in
beliefs among "born-again Christians."  There just happens to be a very vocal
segment that is quite reactionary in its views.  One can be pro-choice and be
a "Fundamentalist Christian," for example.  Or, one can be a "born again
Christian" and be a Democrat (like myself).

"Clean House," start with the White one.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: pruss@unixg.ubc.ca (Alexander Pruss)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist? And proof of existence!
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:10:01 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <Aug.19.00.11.04.1992.14382@athos.rutgers.edu> rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele) writes:

>But that's not an argument.  I was reading Peter Kreeft's excellent  
>summary of Aquinas the other day and St. Thomas adduced an interesting  
>"proof" of the existence of God (I quote "proof" because I don't  
>understand logic well enough to feel comfortable with it unquoted.)
>
>I paraphrase from memory:
>
>o Given infinite time, all possible configurations of things will occur.
>o One possible configuration of things is that nothing exist.
>o Having once occurred, nothing else could ever exist afterward.
>o Things exist, therefore time and things had a beginning and are finite.

St Thomas Aquinas could not have stated the fourth item.
St Thomas was convinced that one cannot logically prove that the
Universe did not exist forever.  He argued carefully to show that
by natural reason alone, a view of the Universe as having always
existed was a perfectly logical view, and consistent with the existence
of God.  Basically, I suppose, what he was trying to say is that by
natural reason we cannot deny the possibility that God created a
temporal order which extended to time "minus infinity," since He
certainly created a temporal order which extends to time "plus infinity."
It must be remembered here that God is BEYOND time, and He is the God
of time, the creator of time itself.

So, according to St THomas, we cannot argue that matter did not always
exist.  We can argue, however, that the whole chain of causes of things
has a first cause, namely God.  However, St Thomas knew well that there
could be an infinite number of intermediate causes, and that (by natural
reason alone) these intermediate causes could sretch back in time
infinitely.

Of course, by revelation (Genesis) we know that the Universe did not
always exist, and of course St Thomas believed this fully.  He only
said it could not be proved by reason alone.

In Christ,
Alex.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Please Prove it to me!
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:53:16 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <Aug.23.21.14.54.1992.23038@athos.rutgers.edu> barnes@owlnet.rice.edu (Roderick Leon Barnes) writes:
}	There is some very convincing work that has been done by Gary Habermaas
}	and Josh McDowell on the credibility of the crucifixtion and the fact
}	that Jesus is the Christ.

Where did Josh McDowell publish this very convincing work?  His book
_Evidenct_That_Demands_A_Verdict_ is the worst thing I've ever read
in terms of illogic, bias, selective sampling,...

A review of the book is available upon request.  Please provide a valid
email address with enough spece (The file is over 3500 lines).

Jim Meritt
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:51:29 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <Aug.31.03.20.04.1992.25798@athos.rutgers.edu>, phantom@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi) writes:
> I have been curious about non-smoking policy of some christians.  From my
> limited experience, catholics seems to smoke openly while protestants
> either don't smoke or downplay the fact that they smoke.
> 
> I did a text search through the entire bible and I could not find anything
> that dictates against smoking.  Where did this policy come from?
> 
> James Choi

    You are quite right, the Bible never mentions smoking. Smoking doesn't send
you to hell, it just makes you smell like you've been there:-)

  On a more serious note, although it is never mentioned in the Bible, smoking
is very harmful and we are warned not to defile the temple of the Holy Spirit.

I am also wary of the fact that breath/wind (pneuma) is associated with the
Holy Spirit and that in Genesis, God breathed into us. By smoking, we are
deliberatly polluting our breath. This is a personal view that I can't support
from scripture but it is certainly something to think about as we are supposed
to be holy vessels, set apart and I personally have no desire to taint this
vessel in this way.

Another thing to look at in regard to defiling our bodies is what else we put
them through e.g. Alchohol, Caffeine, Cholesterol (McDonalds etc), excess sugar
.. the list goes on. I am guilty of more than one in that list!


    If God had meant us to smoke he would have given us chimneys :-)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++    


-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-1)
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:53:56 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Tuesday, September 1:

     God blessed them and God said to them: "Be fruitful and become 
many and fill the earth and subdue it.  <Genesis 1: 28>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Infallibility
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:18:55 GMT

On <23 Aug 1992 08:48> Joseph H. Buehler (5:7104/2) said to All :

 JHB>Here's a good one: the perpetual virginity of our Lady.  It has been
 JHB>held since at least the 4th century, but was never the subject of any
 JHB>decree of a general council.
 JHB>
 JHB>I think the basic idea of the collective infallibility of the
 JHB>hierarchy is that they cannot *all* go astray.  God always ensures
 JHB>that someone sees clearly.  One of the best examples here is St.
 JHB>Athanasius, during the Arian heresy.

St Athanasius was also a strong proponent of the belief that the Theotokos 
remained a virgin. 

I think that several things that became popular in the Church around his time 
were encouraged with a view to anti-Arian propaganda. The celebration of 
Christmas, for one thing. It's one of the things that the Jehovah's Witnesses 
(as modern-day Arians) are utterly opposed to. 

Another is the final blessing at the end of the Divine Liturgy, "through the 
prayers of... the holy and righteous ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna." I 
get the impression that that could have been introduced because someone just 
KNEW it would push the hot buttons of the Arians, and get them into a tizz. 
Perhaps someone had a sense of humour!

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

--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: chip@horse.ssc.gov (Chip Hawley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Clinton & Gore
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:45:24 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

stngiam@athena.mit.edu (Shih-Tung Ngiam) writes:
:  
:   As the "Christian Politics" thread develops, there is a question I'd
: like to ask.  The media reports that Governor Clinton is Baptist.  I'm
: wondering whether he is Southern Baptist.
: 
:   If indeed he is a member of a Southern Baptist church, many of the
: policies he espouses are contrary to the position of the leadership of
: the Southern Baptist Convention.  And if that is the case, how has the
: SBC reacted?  

Clinton is, alas, a Southern Baptist.  However, his wife Hillary attendes
a Methodist church.  From what I HEAR, several leaders within the SBC are
recommending "church discipline" for his support of abortion and gay
rights.  This may be quite interesting since his local church would be the
only organization that could "discipline" him, and it may not take kindly
to "interference" from other churches or leaders, Southern Baptist or not.

 
:   How about Sen Gore?

Gore is also a Southern Baptist.
 
:   Going back in time, President Carter described himself as a born-again
: Christian, if my memory serves me right.  His policies would not have
: been approved of by today's Fundamentalist Christians.
 
Maybe not.  But then again, I don't see Ronald Reagan building houses
for disadvantaged families.

Isn't there anyone in politics who won't sell their personal beliefs and
values for public support?

Chip Hawley           Opinions contained herein are subject to change
SSC Laboratory        without notice, provided the argument is reasonable.
From: peterson@sra.com (Eric Peterson x7644)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Wintnesses
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:42:53 GMT
Organization: Systems Research and Applications

In article <Aug.17.03.36.23.1992.18168@athos.rutgers.edu> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:

>I would like some form of history of the JW's written by someone
>mainstream and unimpeachable. Are there any suggestions? Also I would
>like a lsit of the twistings of truth in their rather unusual
>translation of the bible. 
>
>Thank you in advance

I have observed that one man's twistings are another man's
scholarly/inspired interpretation.  Those who lack the JW zeal for
witnessing - as most agree we have been commanded to witness - should
perhaps concider removing that beam before they worry about using
their own scriptural interpretation (stated as fact) as a yardstick to
measure and beat on those who interpret differently.  My beliefs vary
greatly from theirs but I beleive their is much we can learn from.  

I would invite you to compare that amount of time you have spend
witessing this last month with any of my Jehovah's Witness neighbors.

For what its worth,

Eric

--
                                   Eric Peterson (speaking for myself)
                                   Systems Research and Applications
                                   2000 15th Street North
                                   Arlington, VA 22201
                                   USA
                                   peterson@sra.com
                                   (703) 558-7644
                                   Fax:  (703) 558-4723
From: psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Clinton & Gore
Date: 3 Sep 92 04:03:20 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <Sep.1.22.45.23.1992.23467@athos.rutgers.edu>, chip@horse.ssc.gov (Chip Hawley) writes...
>stngiam@athena.mit.edu (Shih-Tung Ngiam) writes:
> 
>Isn't there anyone in politics who won't sell their personal beliefs and
>values for public support?


In fact, I just finished reading Chuck Colson's autobiography "Born Again" 
in which he details all the nitty gritty behind the Watergate crisis back 
in the 70's.  He was saved in the middle of the scandal, and he began to 
find a large christian politician contingency from which he drew deep 
strength and encouragement.  The book was absolutely fascinating, and 
it gave me a real appreciation for his ministry, as well as a peaked 
interest in praying for our political leaders and keeping abreast on 
political developments. I would recommend it to everyone, as I also believe 
that it accurately describes a dark part of our nation's history, that is 
made unrealistically darker by the media.  (Imagine that...) 

Maureen
From: jd4p+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Ethan DeGraaf)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: What is co-dependance and what is the Bible's view of it?
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:15:14 GMT

It has about as many meanings as there are adherants to it. Originally
it meant being in a relationship to someone who is an alcoholic (what
the Bible would call being a drunkard). A good book about the idea of
co-dependancy and what the Bible has to say about it is:
        "12 Steps to Destruction" published by EASTGATE 
                     the author's last name begins with a G 
	       (sorry I don't remember more)
           It can be ordered through Great Cristian Books (mail order)
More information can be gotten by emailing me.
-----------
John DeGraaf
jd4p+@andrew.cmu.edu
jed+@cmu.edu
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re. money and mouths
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:04:55 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

> If one claims to give a tithe, then it should be a tithe of gross
> (i.e., the first fruits), for if you tithe on net, do you only deduct
> taxes or do you deduct insurance, food, retirement, etc. - where does
> one stop?

There is no requirement to pay a tithe on that portion of the crop that
was destroyed by a plague of locusts.  I think after tax is a suitable
base for tithe calculations.  Your question about where to draw the
line mixes things that you control and things that are forced on you.

> I've never heard it applied to NT, but the OT (Jewish) tithe consisted of
> two 10% tithes a year and one 10% tithe every third year, which results
> in a 23.333% average.  The every third year tithe was for the poor, I
> believe.  [I heard this on Larry Burkett's radio show.]

This is not a criticism of Larry Burkett because I think he is quoting
other scholars when he says this.

However, I have put some effort into trying to understand the tithe as
presented in the pentateuch.  I don't think you can take two 10% tithes
a year and add them together to get 20%.  The two tithes apply to
different bases, as in 10% of the flock and 10% of the produce of the
land.  The third year tithe would increase the average.

dan
From: ASTRO..FERRONI@cs.hh.ab.com (thanks for noticin'... --Eeoyore)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: defining fundamentalism - query
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:11:17 GMT