HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcdphx!charles@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (Charles Wolff)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Power
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:56:30 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az.

somebody writes:
>
>> ... It is beyond human capability to install
>> true Christianity in power.  That will have to wait for Christ's return.  In
>> the meantime, the most that can be done is to install Christians.  Given that
>
>and dcp@teak05.cray.com (Dennis Parker) asks:
>
>What is the difference between installing "Christians" and "Christianity?"

	Well, here is what I wish the difference WAS:

	A "Christian" is a person who holds certain religous beliefs,
	and, as a result of those beliefs, is motivated to live their
	own life in . "Christian" way.  That is to say, they don't
	steal (cheat on their income tax), they don't lie, they
	show the "fruits of the spirit" in their life - love, joy, peace,
	patience, kindness, goodness, fidelity, gentleness and
	self-control (Gal. 5:22).  If you "install" such a person into
	office, they would continue to live this life, even if others
	around them did not; even if this sometimes put them at a
	disadvantage in their own life, or made them look bad.

	(Unfortunately, living this kind of a life greatly reduces ones
	chances of every actually being elected, apart from a miracle
	at the ballot box...)

	I see "Christianity" as a belief _system_ which, in our current
	political world, has become associated with some very specific
	beliefs - pro-life, prayer in the schools, and so on.  When
	you "install Christianity," as somebody like Pat Robertson
	might try to do, you are making that set of beliefs the law
	of the land - everyone is expected to abide by them, whether
	they have accepted the underlying Christian beliefs or not.

	(Again, unfortunately, the people who seem to have the most
	success pushing "Christianity" have often turned out to be not
	living a particularly "Christian" life themselves - consider
	all the TV evangelists who crashed and burned a few years
	ago... looking at recent presidencies, you might say that
	Jimmy Carter was an example of "installing a Christian" and
	Ronald Reagan was an example of "installing Christianity."
	Not perfect examples, especially as Carter is regarded as
	something of a failure as a president, and Reagan turned out
	to be into astrology, but that's exactly my point... )


	"Christianity" carries with it heaven/hell/salvation which means
	for many people, "it's not enough that _I_ am a Christian;
	everyone else has to be one, too."   Or at least ACT like one...

	I wish there was more of a sense among Christians of their
	role as "the salt of the earth." You throw a pinch of salt into
	a stew in order to make the whole stew taste better - NOT to turn
	everything in the pot into salt!  If we had politicians who could
	be depended on to live as "Christians" - to tell the truth, to be
	honest in their dealings, to put the importance of others ahead
	of their own importance - wow!  Unfortunately, what we seem to have
	are politicians whose goal is to "install Christianity".  And
	that's why everybody else is afraid of them!
From: mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike Ciaraldi)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Wanted: Movie Version of "In This House of Brede"
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:10:30 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

Does anyone remember a book from 20 or so years ago, called
"In This House of Brede"?  All I can remember is that is was
about nuns.

Anyway, I heard they made a movie version of it (maybe a TV movie),
'way back then.  Does anyone have any info on the movie version?
Is it available on video?  

Thanks,
Mike Ciaraldi
University of Rochester
mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
From: caw@gtech.com (Christopher A. White)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The pope and Galileo
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:43:30 GMT
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI

>However there's been enough ill-informed discussion in other groups
>about this topic, that it's probably worth having someone who knows
>the background giving us an explanation of the real history behind the
>original judgement against Galileo, and possibly some explanation of
>why the Church decided to act now.  I'm not going to be willing to
>accept comments based on erroneous assumptions.  --clh]

It was in 1987, I believe, that the church by order of the Pope founded
a committee dedicated to scientific review. That is why the church is
only now acting.

Topher
-- 
 Christopher A. White                    | 
 caw@gtech.com                           | Free will is largely overrated. 
 GTech Corporation, West Greenwich, RI   | 
 The opinions expressed are mine alone   |           - Topher

[I've been holding back on postings on this topic, but it appears I'm
not going to get what I'm looking for, so I guess I'll have to let
people say what they know.  We've had discussions on this issue in the
past.  Unfortunately I didn't save the details, so I'm doing this from
memory.  But what I recall is that the church never official
pronounced Galileo's views to be heresy, nor did they try to stop
scientific investigation.  Rather, they believed that his views were
not yet proven, that they had potential for upsetting lots of peoples'
faith, and thus that until they were really proven, Galileo should be
careful to label them as a scientific hypothesis and not fact.  He
agreed to do this (though I believe some coercion was involved, which
I would not want to defend), but did not abide by this agreement.

Note that I do not believe that the church should be in a position to
suppress publication of even screwball scientific theories as fact, so
I do not support the Inquisition in this act.  But some descriptions
of the events have made the situation worse than it actually was.

I'm sort of curious whether anyone knows why the Catholic Church
decided to take this action.  It has accepted the current scientific
view for quite some time.  Is there now some process of clearing the
name of everyone falsely accused during earlier centuries, or is there
some specific reason for concern about this?

--clh]
From: DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Ends justify the means?
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:49:57 GMT

>>Some people reject God because they had bad experiences with Xians.
>>The comment "spend eternity in hell - that will show them" would hopefully
>>show them the riduculousness of their rejection.
> 
> It might generate a fear reaction in someone who is still uncertain, and
> so you might terrorize them into returning to xianity. 

It might generate a fear reaction in someone, and so I might convince them
into returning to Xianity.  You can use the word "terrorize" if you like.
But fear can be valid, and as such it can be a valuable emotion.  If my 
doctor tells me I will die if I don't have surgery, is he "terrorizing" me
into having surgery?  The more info we have, the better decisions we make.
Knowledge of the existence of hell helps us make better informed decisions.
Now you may argue about the existence of hell, but that's not the point.
The point is that I believe hell exists, and as such I have a responsibility
to inform people (or "terrorize" people, as you would say) about hell
so that they can make better informed decisions.

>>Many people I know were originally motivated to believe by fear.  
> 
> This is what I really wanted to address. Just as in the earlier postings
> about the burning babies (which was simply ended--not resolved), you have
> fallen back to say "the ends justify the means" again. That is essentially
> what you are saying, isn't it? 

Some ends justify some means.  Other ends do not justify other means.  Each
situation must be taken on a case-by-case basis.  I believe that using the
fear of hell to motivate someone to Xianity is justified.  I do NOT think
that this approach is the most effective.  I also think it can be overdone,
so I don't think that "terrorizing" others into belief is justifiable.
You may think that mentioning the word "hell" is terrorizing.  I don't 
think that I'm a terrorist just because I believe in hell and express that
belief and concern to others.  

> Or do you prefer to convert people through fear? 

I prefer to convert people through love.

> Your religious terrorism isn't going to work on anyone who thinks
> it through. The only people who it could work on are weak-willed drifters
> who aren't strong enough to ask for real proof, but will be silenced by
> mere threats. 

As far as I can tell from your postings, NO ONE who "thinks it through" 
will be a Xian.   

> Can you tell that it isn't working on me?

Just because it doesn't work on you doesn't mean it won't work on others.
In fact it HAS worked on others.  But that's beside the point.  I wasn't
trying to get it to "work on you".  What I was trying to do is shown
in the first 3 lines of this post.

- Dan Simon -
From: Richter@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de (Helmut Richter)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ECSTACY
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:41:53 GMT
Reply-To: Richter@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)

twiggs_te@alice.lrc.edu writes:

>[snip]
>The feeling began to set in about 1 hour later.  I began feeling extremely
>euphoric.  After a while, I was feeling very intense.  I felt like I loved
>everyone in the building.  I mean, I love Everyone through my faith in Christ,
>but this was different.  I REALLY loved everyone with EVERY ounce of my heart.
>I stopped and hugged almost everyone I passed!  And the thing is, since they
>were on it as well, they hugged me back!  It was like it broke down all
>[snip]
>to humans.  If everyone were to experience this unifying feeling, I truly,
>honestly believe that world peace could be made much easier.  I mean, it's
>[snip]

You are perfectly right, if the following is true:

1. Love is a feeling. The criterion to check whether I love somebody is whether
   I feel I love him/her.
2. Love is the same thing as hugging.
3. Love I feel intensively is more real than love through faith in Christ.
4. World peace depends on the feeling people have, not on their actions.
5. If world peace is constructed while people are UII (under influence of
   intoxination), it will last when they are back to normal.

I suspect that all these statements are wrong. For 1 to 3, consult your Bible,
for 4 and 5, consult your brain while in non-UII state.

Sorry that I have to be so harsh. While there can be debate about the possible
benefits and dangers of your experience (and other posters have done that much
better than I ever could), there can hardly be a debate about the far-fetched
conclusions you draw.

Regards,
Helmut

[Let me expand on the point being made here.  When people ask Jesus
about loving your neighbor, he tells a story about taking care of an
injured person.  In his account of the judgement, he talks about
whether people have helped other people.  That is, he tended to
characterize love by actions rather than feelings.  I have nothing
against having good feelings about people of course.  Jesus was also
concerned about our thoughts and motivations (see e.g. the Sermon on
the Mount).  The concern would be that a feeling created by a drug
would tend to go away as easily as it came, and would not provide a
motivation to change your real-world relationships to people.  To be
fair, one could imagine that someone might have some prejudice or
other impediment to love broken down by such an experience, and thus
that it might actually have a lasting beneficial effect (that is, if
you are willing to accept the physical and legal risks, which I would
not be).  The original poster might have had such an idea in mind.
But it's important for Christians to emphasize that love isn't just a
matter of feeling -- it's a dedication to serving people.  --clh]
From: ppxpmd@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (P.Debenham)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Women Priests (was Re: VNS: Fri 6-Nov-1992)
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:34:44 GMT
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, University of Nottingham

As a further following up to the post about the Church of Englands 's vote today on
whether to ordain women priests.  Ebven if the motion gets past the synod today
(not alt all certain , see previous post) it would talk[D[Dke ke a probable minimum of a
year to get through parliament (The C of E is established which means that its
changes tp[Doo canon law need parliamentalryeryary approval).  Allowing for other areas to
be sorted out (such as which Bishops would ordain , etc.0[]) we would be looking aty 
1994 as the probable sdatae before woyou get and y priesting of women in the CoEf EE.
It is not until the first women are actually ordained and inlicencesd that themore
than a very fesw opponents of the actionis are likely to resign or take other action.
   More than anything else pray for the CofE whichever way the vote goes.  At
the moment it is quite likely that large fractions of the church will spend so
long analysing and responding to thie vote that they forget the otherreasons the
churhchch is hrerere, namely to preach the gospel and minister to to those in the church.

Peter Debenham
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Lost Salvation
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:12:25 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk wrote:
: In article <Oct.23.00.26.45.1992.2408@geneva.rutgers.edu> easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
: >Does anyone believe it is possible to totally reject God, full 360,
: >after being saved (accepting Jesus, knowing Him) and enter hell?
: >
: 
: Speaking from experience, yes. (Have to wait and see about the hell part
: though :-) !)


I think that you need to question whether or not the person concerned
ever fully committed themselves to following Jesus and if they did the
only way(in my understanding) for them to fully reject God (and yes I
do think it is possible) is to willingly, knowingly 'reject' God (e.g.
break the covenant they have made with God (not a good idea, read Old
testement)).
 I will try and did out the scripture for it and post it here later..
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Door-to-Door evang..
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:24:49 GMT
Reply-To: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

I am working with a group at our church to do just that.

We are using methods similar to Campus Crusade for Christ
and Evangelism Explosion.  You can find many materials
at your Christial bookstores, ie. 4 Spiritual Laws,
Your Most Important Relationship.

We are training people to share their testimony with friends
and neighbors.  That's what it is.  Sharing Christ in a
relaxed manner and letting the Holy Spirit work in their
heart.

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|
In article 8483@geneva.rutgers.edu, bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey) writes:
>I was just wondering if there was anybody out there with door-to-door experiencethat they would like to share.
>
>Any good tips etc.. for breaking the nerves
>or even some good first lines for breaking the conversation open.
>
>Thanks in advance.......
From: mmrwlm@sn535.uca (Wanda L McCrae)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Door-to-Door evangel.
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:14:37 GMT
Reply-To: mmrwlm@sn535.uca
Organization: General Electric

>Note the context to Mat 23:15.  Jesus is describing the Pharisees as
>blind guides.  ...  This is certainly a relevant
>warning -- before trying to convert people, we should be sure that we
>understand the Gospel well enough that we're really helping them.  ...

In article 17114@geneva.rutgers.edu, REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov () writes:

>I think this is dangerous theology.  Some of the best witnessing is done by
>new converts because they're too naive to know about all the peripheral 
>hang-ups that come later.
>We must never stagnate the witness of others because we perceive immaturity on
>their part.

I don't think CLH was trying to stagnate others' witness or judge
their level of maturity.  There is a lot wisdom in what was said.  Someone
who is not firmly rooted in the Word could stumble upon the
house of someone who could draw them out of the truth and into
something satanical.

The key is "...we should be sure that we understand the Gospel..."  The persons
who want to do the witnessing must pray and search themselves to
see if they have enough spiritual maturity to witness to someone
else.  If they do not, they may be putting themselves or someone else in
spiritual danger.

---
______________________________________________________________________
Wanda L. McCrae            | "Free your mind and the rest will follow.
mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com  |  Be color-blind.  Don't be so shallow!"
                                 - En Vogue
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: True Christian Distinctives
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:27:42 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

>From many angles, and in the context of many discussions, we have approached
the issue of "proving" God's existence.  More specifically, proving the God
revealed in the Bible - one in essence and three in person.

What literal biblicists seem to answer is that it comes down to faith in the
revealed truth of God - that is, what the Scriptures say.  Hardly the meat
that a pure empiricist wants to chew on.

So, what set's a "true" believer in Jesus Christ apart?  Might I suggest
some things from the Apostle Peter?

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!  In his great mercy
he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish,
spoil or fade - kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by
God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed
in the last time.  

"In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had 
to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

"These have come so that your faith - of greater worth than gold, which 
perishes even though refined by fire - may be proved genuine and may result
in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.  

"Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see
him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible an 
glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation
of your souls."

I Peter 1:3-9

1.  how we hope - we are trully confident in the resurrection from the dead 
    and that that God genuinely rewards those who seek him.

2.  how we suffer - we are convinced that suffering refines our faith and 
    improves our character; not that God is toying with us or that this life
    is simply "unfair."

3.  how we believe - in things that are not visable; resulting in honest joy.

It seems that over time, as folks watch our lives, they key in on these things.
They watch to see if our hope is real, how we react and cope with life's 
setbacks and disappointments and if, through this, we still believe in the 
One whom we do not see to the point of honest, unexplainable joy.

These things say more than all the philosophical arguments.  For there will 
never be a bypass around genuine faith in God and His Word.

"And without faith, it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes
to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly
seek him."  Hebrews 11:6

John
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Lost Salvation
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:27:51 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

What would happen if someone believed and then began to villify and
curse the Holy Spirit, a sin for which there is no forgiveness?
From: bdsuba@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (PANDAMAN)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The first sin?
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:26:36 GMT
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas

In article <Nov.3.23.36.09.1992.581@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes...
>In article <Nov.1.00.32.20.1992.22626@geneva.rutgers.edu> debre@cs.sun.ac.za (Etienne de Bruin) writes:
> 
>   What would you say was the first sin ever done by a human.
>   I am referring to the sin Adam and Eve committed in Eden.
> 
>It was disobedience.  Sexual sin was not possible to Adam; there was
>no temptation of that sort.

Personally, I would vote for pride or vanity as the first sin. It was Eve's 
desire to be like God that caused her to disobey. Pride goeth before a fall.
From: phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ????SupportGroup?????
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:33:27 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

>Is there a support group for christians that have abuse in their past 
>or present (over the network - or by E-Mail)?

I havent seen one but I may start one soon.
Are you interested? Not the one who wrote the rest of you!
Shannon Saltzman

-- 
"Is doggie heavan kitty hell?"
     Stephanie Phoenix(age 6)
={}={}={}={}={}={}={}={}={}={}={}
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Door-to-Door evangel.
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:53:25 GMT
Organization: FNAL

>[
>Note the context to Mat 23:15.  Jesus is describing the Pharisees as
>blind guides.  The problem is not that they are trying to convert
>people, but that they are doing so while they themselves don't
>understand what God is really about.  This is certainly a relevant
>warning -- before trying to convert people, we should be sure that we
>understand the Gospel well enough that we're really helping them.  But
>given Mat 28:19-20, it's hard to believe that Jesus was really opposed
>to trying to preach the Gospel to people.--clh]
>

I think this is dangerous theology.  I understand the caution, but it must be
qualified, because if this were true, Nathanael would not have been brought
before the Lord by Philip.  Some of the best witnessing is done by new converts
because they're too naive to know about all the peripheral hang-ups that come
later.
We must never stagnate the witness of others because we perceive immaturity on
their part.  Maybe the Lord has been trying to have us do it, but we're too
high and mighty.

Rex
From: jokerman@andrej.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Karl-Heinz Meurer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Mormons
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:58:24 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen

I would like to get an e-mail contact to the Mormons
in Salt Lake City, is there anybody who could tell me
how to manage this?

Thank you.

Karl-Heinz Meurer (jokerman@i1.informatik.rwth-aachen.de)

[I'd suggest that some of our LDS readers respond to this via email.  --clh]
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The pope and Galileo
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:12:01 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Hello all

 Is there anyone out there which can respond to 
this week's headline:
Pope J.P.II after 400 yrs. have agreed with Galileo
about the earth not being the center of the universe.
Science, again proves god's weakness :-)

Frank Pinto

[I'm not quite sure what the last comment means, since there's
no obvious connection between God's strength and a geocentric
model.

However there's been enough ill-informed discussion in other groups
about this topic, that it's probably worth having someone who knows
the background giving us an explanation of the real history behind the
original judgement against Galileo, and possibly some explanation of
why the Church decided to act now.  I'm not going to be willing to
accept comments based on erroneous assumptions.  --clh]