HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Ut Re Mi Fa So La
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:34:25 GMT

In <Dec.17.00.23.59.1992.9870@farside.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us
(Joseph H. Buehler) writes:

[...]
>The hymn itself can be found in the liturgical book called the Liber
>Usualis, which you can probably find in Catholic University libraries.
>Be warned that the musical notation is not the modern one, though;
>it's medieval, and I don't know which scales correspond to the
>different modes in the medieval notation.

(1) If memory serves, there actually was an edition of the Liber that
    used modern notation rather than the square notation.

(2) The square notation gives relative pitch only, not keys in the modern
    sense.  The more common form has each line begin with something that
    looks like a C with gross hypertrophy of the top and bottom, this
    sitting straddling a ledger line (of four) --- that declares the
    diatonic Doh (Ut, if you prefer ;^).  The other symbol used adds
    a third blob to the group and declares the position of Fa --- for
    cases in which the modality and/or music makes it more convenient
    to declare the Fa (i.e., trying to keep all the notes within the
    ledger lines) since the C-cleft (going by memory) is only used on
    the top two lines.

    The actual key used depends on the singer(s) --- Gregorian music
    tends to have a total range of only about an octave or an octave and
    a third (nothing like the Gounod Ave Maria with nearly two octaves!).

Other sources would be the books called the Antiphonale Romanum and the
Antiphonale Monasticum --- containing just music for the Divine Office
(not for the Mass), and at that not containing Matins (Vigils, if you
prefer).  The companion volume would be the Graduale Romanum, containing
the Mass music --- the Liber is the combination of these two, with the
explanatory notes in English rather than Latin.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
From: amarante@bucknell.edu (gregory amarante `94)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: CREMATION
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:42:28 GMT
Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA

[This follows a discussion on cremation.
u94_dlavdas@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu commented that his church forbids
cremation because the body is the Temple of God.  --clh]

Yes the body is the temple of God, that is since the Holy Spirit
dwells in it if you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord.  I believe that
whether or not a body is cremated makes no difference, because if
someone believes in the Lord then he/she will go to heaven.  After
death only the soul is what is important, not the body.  The soul is
eternal, the body is mortal.  In Christ we have life no matter what,
therefore I think God wouldn't even care in the treatment of the body
after death.  His concern is the soul and whether or not you believe
in the One He sent.

Just some thoughts.

						Greg.

"Amen.  Come, Lord Jesus."
"Believe in the Spirit and the truth, not doctrine."
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: WHY JEWS RESENT PROSELYTIZING
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:26:20 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>God is considered as beyond 
>anything that we mortals could possibly grasp.  The very thought, 
>that "Jesus is Lord," assaults the basic concept of God for Jews. 

Hmm, this is new to me...  How do Jews interpret "The Lord is
my shepherd" and the like?  I find God a concept impossible to
grasp, and I susepct many other Christians do also.

>Please consider this as simply an explanation why 
>Christianity can never find common ground with Judaism.  It is my
>hope that this will shed light on why Jews are so deeply offended 
>by, and resentful of, Christian proselytising.

Well, one could also say that Christianity flies in the face
of Judaism, as well as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, etc.
I'm sure other religions have the right to be even more offended
and resentful :-)

A strong commandment to Christians is to spread the message to
all the world - regardless of whether the world will be offended
or not.


-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    Where am I?  In the village...  What do you want?  Information...
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Virgin Birth (Re: Preaching to the Moderns)
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:08:38 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <Dec.13.00.18.12.1992.1046@geneva.rutgers.edu> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>
>As a doctrine it does not really make any difference.  However, I must
>believe it because if I do not, I render Matthew and Luke to be fiction
>writers.  How can I believe anything else they write, when their gospels
>start with a fiction?
>
How can you believe anything Jesus said when his parables were fiction?

Yes, I know, he identified many of his sayings as parables. But where is it
written in the Bible that fiction must be labeled fiction for our
convenience. Psalms can be found outside the book of Psalms. We
recognize them as poetry by their form.

You may certainly believe that the Virgin Birth was a fact; most Chritians
do. We have discussed that here before. I don't mean to open the
question again, except to say that it is open to you to take another
alternative. You might leave the question unresolved, as I do. Since
no part of our relationship to God in Jesus depends upon what we
believe about the factuality of the Virgin Birth, why do we have
to declare for or against it?

What if Matthew and Luke did start with a fictional story? Understand me:
what if *God* caused the Bible to be written in such a way that those
books begin with a fiction? Would that make God a liar (as I so often
hear it argued)? He who has put fiction in some parts of the Bible
can certain put it in others, if he so chooses. Whether the infancy stories
are or are not fictional may be beyond our powers to decide with
certainty, given the evidence available. The question remains what do
they mean? How are we to benefit from them? God surely caused them to
be written for our benefit. What more could we want?
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Francis Schaeffer
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:34:03 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

In response to a question by Kurt Marko, I wrote the following:

>Francis Schaeffer was an evangelical Presbyterian, specifically he was part
>of the group of conservative Presbyterians who broke from the old northern
>Presbyterian Church in the 1930s and helped start what later became the
>Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (which later merged with
>the Presbyterian Church in America).  ...

Just to clarify.

In 1936 Francis Schaeffer was a student at the new organized Westminster
Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.  Westminster was founded by J.
Greshem Machen and other former prefessors from Princton Seminary.  Machen,
et. al. were defrocked from the United Presbyterian Church for their stand
on liberalism and refusing to disassociate themselves from an independent
mission board.

A new Presbyterian denomination was founded at this time; the Presbyterian
Church of America (no relation to the present-day Presbyterian Church in
America).  It later disolved into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and
Bible Presbyterian Church.  From the Bible Presbyterian Church came the
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (in the late 50s).  The Evangelical
Presbyterain Church later merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church to
form the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod.  In the 1980s,
the RPCES joined with the Presbyterian Church in America.  I believe this
happened prior to Schaeffer's death.


--
Tom Albrecht

[The RPC, ES jointed the PCA in 1982.  Schaeffer died in 1984. --clh]
From: wpalmer@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Palmer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Atheism -> Christianity
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:21:41 GMT
Reply-To: wpalmer@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Palmer)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

Hello to all,

	      While I don't have anything to say on this subject, I 
find the thread of discussion fascinating reading, and a real powerful 
Christian witness to...well, at least, to me. I offer a heart-felt "thank
you" to all those people who have told their story of conversion.


Bill Palmer
-- 
----------------------------------------------
I'm the victim of EJ's signature virus! Oh No!
From: BOCHERC@hartwick.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Satan's Fall
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:18:03 GMT

In article Satan's fall from Heaven, item 3163, Dec. 9, '92,
"huber@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU" (James G. Huber) writes:

>Enlighten me!  I need to know how and when you, the devout Chriastians
>...believe Satan fell from Heaven, etc..."

Sorry this is not in time for your paper, but read Isaiah 14:12-15 and
Luke 10:18.

Please post if it is warranted.  Thank you.
From: bill@cac.washington.edu (Bill Whitson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Atheism -> X-tianity (Thanks)
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:38:44 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

Thanks a lot to everyone who responded to my post.  I wanted to make one
thing clear: I really didn't bother my friend about his choice - I really
don't care what anyone else believes and generally I don't discuss it.

If I ever find out what's happening, I'll post.  He's still avoiding me, so
I'll just let him cool for a while.

Once again, thanks for the great responses.

Bill Whitson
bill@booster.u.washington.edu
From: allegra!lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christmas on the 25th.  Why? (was Re: Messianic Jews and Christmas)
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:51:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

December 25th as Christmas:


According to Conarias' Introduction to the Orthodox Church, the dating
for Christmas and the dating for the feast day of John the Baptist are
related.

John the Baptist's saying "He must increase and I must decrease" is symbolically
represented in the liturgical year
by having John  the Baptist's feast day on the longest day of the
year, and Christmas on the shortest.  So after Christmas , the
amount of light is increasing.  After John's feast day, it is decreasing.

It is also symbolic that Jesus came into a world of darkness.  His coming
brings the light.

Dan
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Francis Schaeffer
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:10:25 GMT
Organization: G.M. Research Laboratories

In article <Dec.15.04.10.53.1992.5081@geneva.rutgers.edu> kmarko@hpbs654.boi.hp.com (Kurt Marko) writes:
>On recommendation of a good friend, I am starting to read a few books
>by Francis Schaeffer.  Aside from the somewhat terse biographies on
>the book jackets, I'm wondering if someone could fill in some
>background on his life and work.  What Protestant 'tradition' does he
>come from?  Has he had influence on any denomination in particular?
>Anything else I should know? :) 
>
Francis Schaeffer was afiliated with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, I 
believe. In any case, he was a conservative Presbyterian in his theology. He 
is known for the ministry, L' Abri, which he started in Switzerland in
the 40's (well, late 40's or early 50's), and for the books he wrote.

L'Abri is a ministry which primarily tries to make a case for Christianity
to young intellectuals.  They don't advertise or go to people. Instead
they pray that the Lord will send people to them to be ministered to.
And He does.

The books divide down into several themes:

(1)Explaining Christian truth to 20th century
intellectuals;
(2)Warning Christians about the dangers of accepting secular philosophical
views uncritically;
(3)Warning Christians about the dangers of drifting from the historic teachings
of the church, and showing how these teachings are based on Scripture;
(3)Bible studies (Genesis and Joshua that I can recall at the moment);
(4) Teaching church history

All of them are available in a 5 volume set with a title
something like "The complete works of Francis Schaeffer" I highly recommend the
set, because his books depend on one another quite a bit, and there
is a single index for all 5 volumes. That helps a lot.

So far as his theology is concerned, he was a fairly traditional Calvinist,
although his eschatology was Historic Premil, not Amil or Postmil.
Although many people considered him a theologian, he considered himself an
evangelist. And he did evangelism the hard way: one on one with intellectual
skeptics.

His wife, Edith, also wrote a number of books, including one called "L'Abri",
which deals extensively with what L'Abri and the Schaeffers' ministry
is all about.

Another poster mentioned Franky (Frankie??) Schaeffer, his move to
the Orthodox faith, and his spirited defense of it. Franky is pretty
spirited about everything he does, so that doesn't surprise me. I would be
very interested in a synopsis of his reasons.  BTW, I have heard a rumor
that another bastion of Calvinism, R. C. Sproul, has begun to advocate
formal liturgy in church services, and in R. C.'s case it seems to be
based on a concern that churches like Willow Creek may wipe out
much of Christian tradition.  Is that one of Franky's concerns? 

Lest I be misunderstood, I have NOT heard that Sproul is moving
away from Calvinist theology. May it never be!

Bill Hamilton
From: leonard@aix3090b.uky.edu (Leonard Lauria)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dating
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:28:00 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

aslt@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

>I'm sorry, but this is a hot button with me, so I can't just hit 'n' for 
><not again> on this one...

>The problem I have with these posts is the 'oh-pity-us-poor-deprived-singles' 
>attitude that is implied.   It is not constructive, and in fact helps 
>promote the idea that 'unmarried' is analogous to 'pre-married' and/or
>that the single Christian adult is 'deprived' or 'handicapped' in some way.
>The poor single is therefore an incomplete person deserving of 
>pity and sympathy.

>Bunk.

<stuff deleted>


This is not a hot button for me, but your reply was....  :)

The problem is (or should be) people being generalized.  Not all singles
want to be married, not all should be, not all want to remain single.
The bible does talk about this quite a bit, but the bottom line was to
be happy with your situation and let God lead you along.  That may mean
leading you to someone, and it may not.

I am single, and don't want to be.  :)   But I also know, and see, many
people who are married, that have ruined it, or should never have entered
into the relationship.  They are not as happy as I *should* be.  I am a
happy person most of the time, but there are times where I would welcome
pity since I am alone.  However, I do not believe all singles should be
grouped into the poor pathetic bunch that many others believe we are.

Have you ever heard "your single, you don't act single", or "your divorced,
you don't act like it".  Now what does THAT mean?  I guess we are suppose
to look like we are miserable, and on the hunt?!?!?!  I am glad when someone
says that to me, because I figure that tells me I am dealing with my life
as I should be, by letting God work with me.

Leonard


--

===========================================================================
   -This space intentionally left blank.
From: st14@cornell.edu (Stephen Tseng)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Is Christianity really the ONLY way?
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:09:13 GMT
Organization: Cornell University

I've been having difficulty trying to understand something. Doesn't Jesus
say that belief in Him is the only way for salvation, and that we cannot
be
saved through our own efforts? However, this would seem to cut off
millions
of people who have never heard of Jesus, and millions more who died before
Jesus even walked the face of the earth. One argument I heard was that God
will have mercy on whomever he decides, and that belief in Jesus was the
only SURE way. This however, leaves an opening in logic. If God saves even
one person who didn't accept Christ, then Jesus really is not the one and
only way. 

There seems to be four ways out of this logical trap.

1)Jesus encompasses much more than just the Man who died on the Cross.
Perhaps Jesus may be embodied in other philosophies and religions which
truly seek a closer relationship with the Creator. Thus, Jesus may
represent those Universal truths that are present in both Christianity and
many other religions. In this case, Christians have to broaden their view
of Christ, and realize that though Jesus may be the only way, perhaps the
same cannot be said for Christianity.

2)Another way out of the (as i see it) logical dilemma is to proclaim
everyone else who is not Christian, even if s/he never heard of Christ, to
hell. In this case, God would appear to be unjust. Perhaps this is the
correct answer, since I really am in no position to say what true justice
is. But I don't think I could believe in a God who wouldn't give most of
the people who ever lived a chance for salvation.

3)Yet another way out is that God doesn't play by mankind's logic. In this
case Jesus is the only way to salvation for some, but not to others, even
if He did say that no one comes to the Father except through Him. If this
is the real answer, then there's no point in even thinking about it,
because it is beyond our comprehension, and mankind will never find out
the
answer.

4)Of course the final way out is to be an atheist so the whole point is
moot.

I am not an atheist (so no#4). I also don't believe that God would not
abide by the
logical rules of the universe which He created. Doing so would totally
prevent us from learning anything about His nature or His will for us.
(so no
#3) I already pointed out why I couldn't believe #2.

What I'm looking for is either someone to point out my flawed logic so
that
there really isn't a dilemma, a confirmation of my reasoning, and
discussion on what you believe is the answer, or other ways which I
haven't
thought of that allows you get out of the problem.

Right now I'm leaning toward my first method of resolving the quandary.
However, I feel as though I belonged in a cult if I said that Christianity
is not the only way for salvation, and thus taking on an Universalist
view.
-----------------------------------------------------
Stephen Tseng
st14@cornell.edu
From: phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is Christianity the only way?
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:05:06 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha


 I have this image of God sitting at his throne,and when a sinner
who never had a chance comes up to the throne,God says"Sorry sucker,
hey, I know you never had a chance to hear of me but thats the way
the cookie crumbles hahahahahahahaha!!!!!"
I can hear that message in those who say "weve got to go off to some
foreign land now or they will never have a chance for salvation!!".
I believe that:
1...God only sends those to hell that know the choice and choose to go
2...There are more than enough suffering here to help
3...God says he is just and that message is not just(I know its kinda
repeatative but I have to have a #3 in there:))

 If God sends one person who never had the chance to Hell,and it is
not a good and just decision, I will step off into the abyss with the
unfortunate. God loves each of us so much that he will do anything
save compromising his word to save us. I doubt that plain ignorance
will stop my God if he wants his voice heard.

-- 
 MR Shannon Saltzman

[You might want to think carefully about the implications on
missionary work.  Do you object just to a specific attitude towards
"heathen", or do you think there's no reason to do evangelism?  If you
still think evangelism is required, why?  You might want to consider
what Jesus has to say on the subject.
(Mat 28:18 ff)
--clh]
From: cozzlab@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Ut Re Mi Fa So La
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:24:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Dec.17.00.23.59.1992.9870@farside.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>
>	UT queant laxis

	....

>	Sancte Ioannes.
        -      -
>.... The "Ut" somehow got changed to "Do"
>over the centuries, at least in English, and "Ti" got added also.

In Europe, I believe, the seventh note is "si," and I've been told
(caution here) that it got its name from the initial letters of
_Sancte Ioannes_ (see above, and remember that the vowel I and the
consontant J, pronounced Y, are the same in Latin).  The note for
"Sanc-" in the hymn is not on the seventh note; a lot of chant doesn't
range nearly as far as an octave.  (Though there's always Hildegarde
of Bingen, who uses octave leaps all over the place, but that's another
story.)


Dorothy J. Heydt
UC Berkeley
cozzlab@garnet.berkeley.edu

Disclaimer:  UCB and the Cozzarelli lab are not responsible for my
opinions, and in fact I don't think they know I have any.
From: bill@cac.washington.edu (Bill Whitson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Atheism -> Christianity
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:17:27 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

Hi.  This is for any of you out there that were once atheists but are now
Christians.  I have a friend who up until about three weeks ago was an
atheist.  One weekend he suddenly started going to a local church.  I am
an atheist (please don't comment directly on this. I'm not trying to change
anyone. I tend to be very tolerant and I'm not going to change.) and I have
questioned him on his change of mind.  He seems to avoid the questions and
generally be hostile about the subject.  He also seems to try to avoid me
now when we were good friends before.

So the question is, if you have had a similar change of mind, what prompted
it.  I'm just curious about this sudden unexplained change.  Post or feel
free to e-mail me.  Just please don't send me any pro-christian propaganda;
this has already been done to me several times.

Thanks a lot.

Bill Whitson
bill@booster.u.washington.edu


---
Sorry, I'm .signorant