HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Cell Group Churches -- strategy vs. purpose
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:05:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Since the time of my first posts, I have learned a *lot* more about the
cell group church idea.  The strategy of the cell group structure is easy
to grasp, and so that's why I focused on it.  But lately, my heart has been
burning with a new passion as I have started to understand not just the
_how_ of cell group churches, but the _why_.

Strategies are not an end in themselves -- they are formed to fulfill a
purpose.  The purpose behind the cell group church strategy is nothing less
than the unchangeable purpose of God: for his Son, Jesus Christ, to be
preeminent in everything, and to have a vast family from all the peoples of
the earth who will share his life, nurture, spirit, vision, purpose, and
dedication, living in intimacy with him.

Of the churches that hold this as their purpose, most are sadly
ineffective.  Even "growing" churches are growing by migration and not
conversion.  My church is sick and tired of being a "good church" that
grows just by attracting Christians from other fellowships.  The harvest
*is* plentiful, and the church just seems to be waiting for the lost to
show up on Sunday mornings... and it isn't happening, because the
unchurched consider the church to be irrelevant -- and they're right.  The
workers are waiting in the barn for the harvest to walk in, when we're
supposed to be _out there_ gathering, involved in the lives of these
people, loving them with the love of Jesus, serving them with the servant
heart of Jesus, and ministering the power of the kingdom of God into their
lives.

The cell group church strategy has been demonstrated to be effective in
transmitting not mere information, but life-changing values.  I know that
my own life has been changed forever in the last three months as the values
of God have been impressed on my life through the training I have received
as a small group leader.  The small group leaders are now being
commissioned to "pass it on" to the newly forming small groups.  But even
if this whole thing flops, I know that I will never be the same, and I am
determined to expend the rest of my life pursuing the passion of Jesus.

Some questions for people to ponder:

  - Does your church hold this purpose?

  - Is it *the* purpose of your church, or just one of several "good"
    things?

  - Does your church have a strategy to meet this purpose?

  - How effective is your strategy?

  - Can this purpose be observed in the lives of your church's members by
    seeing how they spend their time, energy, and money throughout the
    week?
-- 
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: saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Friend of Entropy)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:49:49 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz

In article <Sep.29.02.47.36.1992.3839@athos.rutgers.edu> snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - E41) writes:
>
>
>A point about equality of men and women.... this is a very recent concept,
>still only held in part of the world today.  You are welcome to your opinion
>and your vote!  But I would caution you against using a hundred years of
>history/philosophy to judge four thousand years of history.  In point of
>fact men and women are different (Amen!).  Who can say what the prevailing
>opinion on this subject will be should Jesus choose to tarry even 25 more
>years?
>
	So when God passed down his laws to Moses, _HE_ was limited by
the current popular opinions of his creations?  I would hope that Gods
laws are somehow outside the current state of sexual politics.  In short,
God should believe that his followers are equal, even if his flawed creations
do not.


>A point to consider per slavery.  You ARE a slave.  I AM a slave.
>It is my guess we serve different masters, but know clearly that we
>serve.  The ruler of this world is Satan.  This is why when he was
>tempting Jesus he was able to offer it to Jesus if Jesus would bow to
>him.
>
	This is my point:  how do you know that?  I mean, you brush of
Gods suposed views about slavery and the sexes, but then you believe all
the discussions about Satan?  How do you know that those views were not
merely attempts by the spiritual leaders of that age to keep the followers
in line.  Something they dug out of old legend, because they thought it
was nessesary for some reason.  Dont your think you are on shakey ground,
when you begin to dismiss the relevence of some parts of the bible, but
believe without question the others?

>Which brings up an important point.  Your gonna do a lot better if you
>start with the most important commandments in the bible and work your
>way down to worrying about this other stuff.... Start by loving the
>Lord with all your heart, mind and soul and then love your neighbors as
>yourself.   Make sure that you have a loving/serving heart attitude with the
>works to go with it and you won't spend a lot of time getting upset about
>slavery, equality, capital punishment and whatever else.
>
>God bless you!  Stephen

	Well, if i disagree with Gods views, as expressed in the bible, 
who exactly am i worshiping then?  There is the problem that comes from
my first post, what reason do i have to worship a god who is behind 
actions and views that i hate, if i have no confidence in my ability to
pick and chose from the Bible?

	-nick
From: miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel with people who don't think they're sinners
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:02:16 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplanes MR&D

Joel:
	I don't propose to give "7 steps to soul-winning" or any such cut-and-
dried answer to your question. I admire your drive and motives. I think
I hear you asking "How can I help others see their guilt before God and
their need for forgiveness?". IMHO, you can't. The Holy Spirit alone can
convict. You can inform, bless and love those around you. Until the Spirit
intervenes, we remain blameless in our own eyes. (Even us Christians, to
an extent...) It sounds as though your best approach is prayer and fasting.
Know that the Lord loves these people more than you, and your prayers
do not fall on deaf ears. I have seen God faithful to my prayers of this
type, but on His timetable, not mine. It could take literally decades.
Be faithful in prayer and patient.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark R. Miller                     | 
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company | 
Seattle, WA                        | 
Internet: miller@b-mrda.boeing.com | 
Voicenet: (206) 237-0960           |  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pruss@unixg.ubc.ca (Alexander Pruss)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Apologetics
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:43:31 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <Sep.30.01.36.16.1992.7313@geneva.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>Richard Pitts summarises several chapters from a book by D James Kennedy
>titled _Why I Believe_.
>
>I suspect that Dr Kennedy has mistitled his book; that is, I presume he was a
>believer _before_ he went about digging up evidence.  If so, the evidence is
>not WHY he believes, but only supports his beliefs.  The reason he first
>became a believer was something else.

However, even if one believes from early childhood, there sometimes 
comes a time when one questions thbe faith.  And, when one questions it,
if one does not find evidence for it, one may abandon it.  What I am
saying is that Dr Kennedy might have gone through a crisis of faith,
and have only come out of it thanks to the evidence.  (I.e. if he did not
find the evidence he might have become an agnostic.)

In Christ,
Alex.
From: pnelson@cobra.tymnet.com (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God's Slaves? (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:25:02 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <Oct.2.00.13.44.1992.1518@geneva.rutgers.edu> anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell) writes:


>Slavery sounds like an involuntary relationship, and a destructive one -- one
>in which the person enslaved is degraded by his/her service.  "Servant" is for

 Not all slavery is involuntary.


>choose not to be slaves anymore; servants must continually renew their
>commitment to their service, since they could pack up and leave.  "Servant"

Typically servants must be continually rewarded for their service, or they
pack up and leave. Slaves serve no matter what, even unto death.



>* Liz Broadwell (by643@cleveland.freenet.edu) ***************************


-- 
Phil Nelson . pnelson@tymix.Tymnet.COM . San Jose, CA, USA . 408-922-7508

        A hot-tempered man must pay the penalty;
   if you rescue him, you will have to do it again.        -Proverbs 19:19
From: bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com (Brad Kaiser)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Are Most Religious Followers So Sensitive?
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:53:05 GMT
Reply-To: bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group

In article <Sep.27.22.08.46.1992.1825@athos.rutgers.edu> Mike Van Pelt writes:
>In article <Sep.25.21.05.24.1992.3862@athos.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:

>>   Recently I posted an article on being a Non-Religious Practioner.
>>   In my statement, I said I don't agree or believe the truthfulness
>>   of the Bible.  All I asked was for some more facts besides the
>>   Bible claiming that God exists.  
>>
>>   Is that too much to ask for from this Newsgroup?  To some obviously
>>   it must have been because I got some real nasty and attacking
>>   comments.  Are you all that sensitive to the point to get nasty
>>   with someone who don't believe in God just by faith.  
>
>I am outraged that anyone claiming to be a Christian would
>attack you for asking for evidence.

I agree with Mike.  It is hard enough for someone to come to faith in
Christ without those who claim to follow Him making it harder.

In addition to the books Mike mentions, from a Catholic perspective, I
might suggest "Catholic Apologetics Today", by Fr. William Most (TAN
Books, 1986).  Most any Catholic bookstore should be able to find it
for you.

We need not put our faith only in the Bible; there are an abundance of
good reasons to believe, both natural and supernatural.  It is, rather,
through faith that we come to trust the Bible.

But ultimately, faith is a wondrous gift from God, and we find it
through prayer.

In Christ's Peace,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

	  Those who trust in Him shall understand truth,
	  and the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
	  Because grace and mercy are with His holy ones,
	  and His care is with His elect.
		    -- Wis 3:9 [NAB]
From: I2LY@cornella.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: God and sexism
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:39:35 GMT

I would like to address the issue of the issue of God (and Christianity)
as sexist.  A number of verses on the topic of the equality of men
and women were posted (as were verses on slavery, which I won't address
here).  These verses seemed to paint a damning picture of an
unegalitarian view of geneder.  However, the poster (sorry, i forget your
name) should realise that Christians, when attempting to understand the
biblical position on any issue, try to look at all verses and passages
pertaining to that issue, consider them together, and attempt to come to
a coherent understanding of the overall teaching.  Thus as well aas the
verses listed that mostly provide rules for specific situations, we must
consider the more underlying principles apparent in other passages.
  The most obvious teachings on gender equality are in Genesis 2, where
we are told that 'God made man (humans) in His own image, male and female
He created them'. (both male and female are equally made in the image of
God).  Then, of course, there is Paul's assertion that 'in Christ there is
no more male nor female, greek nor jew, slave or master, but all are one
in Christ Jesus'.  IF we look at the life of Jesus, we see that He
treated women in a way that was radically different than the cultural
norm;
he showed enormous respect  and compassion even for those women who were
social outcasts, such as prostitutes.   Even Paul, who has aquired a
reputation for shocking misogyny, seems from the book of Acts and from
many of his salutations to have accepted women in positions of
leadership as well as personal friends.
  Most christians accept that some of the old testament laws are not
binding on christians, as Jesus has 'fulfilled' the Law.  The laws are
seen as expressing some underlying truths, and their applications in
particular cultures are a matter of some debate.  Of course we do come
back to the problem of the seeming misogyny of the laws, but these
must be balanced by the radical teachings of the equality of men and women.
   We also see the overwhelming love of God, which reassures me that
indeed, God is good, and in trying to understand the mind of God on
gender roles (whoops, how presumptuous) His love and justice will be
important elements.  Hope we can continue this discussion,
    Fiona
From: U94_DLAVDAS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU (D E A N)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Pseudo Decrees/Writings
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:01:14 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


	While researching the early Christian Church, I have come across
the Pseudo-Isadorian Decrees and the Pseudo-Clementine Writings.  All I know
is that they have something to do with the Papacy and the Church of Rome.
		Can anyone provide details?

Dean Lavdas
STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Hoboken, NJ

[According to the Oxford Dictionary of Church History, the Pseudo-
Isisdorian Decretals (also known as the False Decretals) were
attributed to St.  Isidore of Seville (d 636), but were actually
compiled in France around 850.  It contains: (1) letters of Popes from
before Nicea, all forgeries (2) canons of councils, mostly genuine (3)
letters of popes from 336 to 731, 35 of which are spurious.  They were
intended to defend the rights of bishops against metropolitans, and to
some extent to defend papal supremacy.  Pope Nicolas I used them in
865, apparently knowing them to be forgeries, but during the Middle
Ages they were considered historical.  They were used by Thomas
More to defend the Papacy.  They were shown to be forgeries in 1558.
The canons of the councils (most of which were genuine) were one
of the major bases of canon law during the middle ages.

I'm less sure what the Pseudo-Clementines refers to.  There are a
number of letters and other things from Clement of Rome (late 1st
Cent).  However there are also a number of things attributed to him
falsely.  I have a feeling that the term probably refers to something
specific, but the Dictionary doesn't identify it.  There were things
attributed to Clement among the False Decretals, so it could be that.
It could also be the Apostolic Constitutions, a document from the last
half of the 4th Cent. containing various liturgical material, canons,
etc., that were falsely attributed to Clement.

--clh]
From: rlwinter@tomatillo.engr.ucdavis.edu (Richard Lee Winterstein)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Useless Pedantry
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:43:16 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering - University of California - Davis

Okay, take a breather: no hair-splitting theological question here:

Recently I saw a man wearing a shirt with "Carpe Deo" boldly emblazoned on
the back, obviously referring to the familiar "Carpe Diem."  Now I've only
just begun my study of Latin, but shouldn't that be "Carpe Deum?"  Or is
there some irregularity with which I am not familiar?  I shudder to think there
is a well-meaning Christian out there offending Latinophiles!  :)

Thank you,
Rick
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-26)
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:47:04 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Saturday, September 26:

     And you, O son of man, hear what I am speaking to you.  Do not
become rebellious like the rebellious house.  Open your mouth and eat 
what I am giving you.  <Ezekile 2: 8>

-- 
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: Councils and canons (was Innerancy (sic))
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:20:24 GMT

On <29 Sep 1992 21:56> Eric James Ewanco said to All :

 EJE>> The Council of Nicaea was not held under the auspices of the Roman 
Catholic
 EJE>> Church, but under the auspices of the emperor Constantine.  
 EJE>
 EJE>Ecumenical councils are always held under the auspices of the 
 EJE>universal church.
 EJE>They are not secular affairs.

The historical fact is that the council was summoned by the Emperor 
Constantine.

 EJE>> His motoives were probably mainly political - he saw a major 
 EJE>fight developing
 EJE>> among the Christians and thought this would be source of 
 EJE>social disruption
 EJE>> that he would rather avoid, so he sponsored a meeting in a 
 EJE>similar way to the
 EJE>> United Nations, or groups of countries, sponsor meetings 
 EJE>between warring
 EJE>> factions and countries today. In my own country (South 
 EJE>Africa) nowadays it is
 EJE>> the other way round. Church leaders are trying to get 
 EJE>political leaders to hold "talks".
 EJE>
 EJE>You are incorrect.  Ecumenical councils are called to solve 
 EJE>doctrinal disputes.

I agree with your second statement, but not your first. Constantine saw the 
particular doctrinal dispute in question as a danger to the political 
stability of the empire.

 EJE>The issue at hand at the Council of Nicaea was the whether 
 EJE>Christ was created
 EJE>or uncreated.  The result of the Council of Nicaea was the 
 EJE>Nicene Creed, still
 EJE>said by Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans today (maybe a few 
 EJE>others).  The
 EJE>issues were doctrinal, not political.

The Creed produced by the Council of Nicaea is not in common use today by any 
group of Christians. The creed commonly called "Nicene" was is usually 
attributed to the First Council of Constantinople, which met in 381. The 
Western church made some additions at the Council of Toledo in 589, 
but these were not accepted in the East. The additions were 
popularized by Charlemagne, and were one of the causes of the Great 
Schism of 1054. 

Certainly the issues discussed at the Council of Nicaea were doctrinal, not 
political. I did not say that they were political. I said the emperor's 
motives in summoning the council were _probably_ political.
--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.5!Steve.Hayes
Internet: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org

[This discussion seems to be reaching the end of its useful life.
--clh]
From: bbs.india@goonsquad.spies.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sandy Patti Divorce??
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:14:42 GMT
Organization: Spies in the wire, information co-op -- (408) 867-7400

> We can't condemn the lady, no. We can't condemn Mr. Warnke, either.
> But who can seriously believe that hearing her songs and then hearing
> that she left her husband (he seeks reconciliation; she has nixed it)
> can have no impact?  Even though we do not pass judgment on her, her
> work is marred.  So too is the work (if we can call a fraudulent book
> "work") of Mr. Warnke. To forgo judgment of them as people is one thing;
> to say their lives are no contradiction, however, is an appalling
> refusal of the facts.
> -- 
> Peter Farrell			| "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, 

I agree with Peter.
The problem is  that Sandi Patti, Mike Warnke, Anita Bryant et al
were said not only to be entertainers but also to "have ministries."
Church members flocked to hear these people perform with their
pastors' blessings, in many cases; among evangelicals the concerts
were tantamount to religious events.
I can separate the person from the art, but when are we evangelicals
going to stop making pop entertainers the focus of our spiritual
lives?  Until this happens, people are going to find themselves
continually disappointed.  
India J. Carter
From: cotera@aspen.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions about the Bible
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:29:19 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

In article <Sep.29.03.11.29.1992.5795@athos.rutgers.edu>, cabezon!kapila@uunet.uu.net (Kapila Ranasinghe) writes:
 
>   But I have fundamental questions about various 
> qualifications applied to the nature of God.  God is
> said to be perfect.  But his creations seem to have
> too many imperfections.  [..continues saying that God was 
responsible for creation, so how can he punish for imperfections
that he is responsible for --clh]

God created man with free will.  He could have made robots, but then any love
they showed Him wouldn't be real.  In order for them to have free will, it was
necessary for man to have the choice to disobey Him.  The rest is history.  God
realized that man would sin so He had already begun making plans to allow for
man's salvation.  Any more questions?
--Ray Cote
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Are Most Religious Followers So Sensitive?
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:29:12 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

>[Jack Wong commenting on how Christians are rude when asked if God exists]

While I do not wish to speak for others, I think I may be able to
explain some of the discomfort Christians have with "Does God exist"
questions.  Try the following analogy:  Suppose you and your wife
were sitting in your living room, when your neighbour dropped in.
You invite him in for some coffee, and say something like ".. this
is my wife".  Now, you neighbour, instead of walking over to her and
shaking her hand, says "What wife?".  You point to her, and say
"Over there".  The response comes "There nobody there Jack.  Are you
feeling all right?"

I think you get the idea.  It does not justify curtness, or rudeness,
but it may help to explain the sensitivity of the question.
From: anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Orthodox Saints:  Thanks!
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:39:37 GMT
Organization: Society of Independent Newswaifs

Thanks to all who responded to my question about canonization of saints in the
Orthodox Church.  I now know more about than I did when I asked, which was my
purpose in asking.


* Liz Broadwell (by643@cleveland.freenet.edu) ***************************
* Department of English                       *   Cor ad Cor Loquitur   *
* The University of Pennsylvania              ***************************
                                    
Newman Centenary Celebration * 1893-1993 * 100 Years of Campus Ministry!