HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Thorn in the flesh
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:53:16 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Apr.15.04.43.06.1992.4658@dumas.rutgers.edu> rdb147t@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Joel Hynoski) writes:
>However, I believe a lot of the evidence in Scripture points to the
>distinct possibility that Paul may have been a homosexual. His 'thorn
>in the flesh' was one with which he battled daily, and had to
>'wrestle' with.

I don't see any basis in  Scripture to support the idea that Paul's
thorn in the flesh was a homosexual predisposition.  It would have been
a sin for him even to desire, or lust after, a man.  I don't think the
thorn in the flesh is a sinful weakness.  Paul probably also understood
the desirability of women.  He wrote in I Corinthians 9 about how he
and Barnabas both had the right to take wives with them, and to be
paid by the church, just like the other aposltes.  He waved both of 
these rights.            
Perhaps the other apostles were gifted with wives because their ministry
was to the Jews, and marriage was an important part of being respected
among the Jews of the day.  We know that at least the ministry of Peter,
John, and James the Lord's brother was to "the circumcision."
Paul and Barnabas had everyone else to evangelize.  Paul and Barnabas 
endured hunger, thirst, poverty, and beatings.  They moved from
place to place.  It would have been difficult to have a wife and 
children under these circumstances.

Romans 1 seems to show Paul's disgusted with the idea of homosexual desire.
He describes it as "vile affections."  (KJV.)  From his description, it
would seem that if he had homosexual desires, he would consider himself to
have been delivered to vile affections because of his disobedience to God.

Paul writes that his thorn in the flesh was a "messenger of Satan to buffet
"..<him>.."lest"..<he>.."should be exalted above measure."
He conticues to write of how he glories in his infirmities, reproaches,
necessities, persecutions, and distresses for Christ's sake.

I think that Paul's thorn in the flesh was a messenger or angel sent
from Satan to bring these problems to him.  His state of constant
distress kept him humble before the Lord.
In a way, I think Paul was Jobed.  (Verb formed from the OT name Job.)
God allowed a demonic power to fight against him, for His own glory.

Link Hudson.
From: gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu (gt5599d TOLBERT,JASON ALAN)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Essenes?
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:22:17 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Can anyone tell me about the Essenes?

How did they influence early Christianity?

Were they accepted/rejected by early Christians?

What was Jesus' affiliation with this sect?

Jason



-- 
"True peace is not the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice"
- Martin Luther King, Jr     
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt5599d
ARPA: gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu 				Jason Tolbert
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Fallen angels
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

Benny Hinn has written a book called "War in the Heavenlies" which 
discusses the fall of Satan extensively. I have it at home, I've started
it but am nowehere near finished (it's a short book - I'm just one of those 
people who is typically reading half a dozen books at a time) I know that
Bible scholarship is not what built Hinn's reputation, but he does read Hebrew
and Greek, and appears to do a nice job of tying together all the material
in the Bible about Satan. 

I'm not recommending it or panning it - just thought it might be of interest.

Bill Hamilton
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Paul: Did he meet Jesus?
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:07:40 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

>Did Paul ever meet Jesus in the flesh?

Paul saw the Lord in visions, but as far as I know, there is no reason
to believe that he saw him in the flesh.  He was a young man at the stoning
of Stephen, which was probably several years after the ressurection.  
Paul may have been a chld during the time of Jesus' ministry.

>How did the early churches come to respect a man so much that he influenced
>the New Testament many times as much as any of Jesus's original 12 disciples?

Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15:8-11 how that he was the least of the
apostles,because he persecuted the church.  Yet, he labored more than
any other of the apostles. Perhaps this is why he was blessed to write
so much of the New testament.  maybe god gave him this previlidge because
unlike most of the apostles, he gave up the right to have a wife, and to
recive financial support from the church (I Cor. 9.)  

There were also other apostles besides Paul and the twelve.  Barnabas
was one.  Depending on how you interpret the passage, you could say that
Andronicus and Junia were apostles (Romans 16) and that Timothy was
an apostle.

the following was written by our moderator:
>[Paul's only direct contact with Jesus was in the encounter at his
>conversion.  That's probably not what you meant by "in the flesh".

If I recall correctly, Jesus also appeared to Paul before on another occasion
in Acts.  Either before he set off to go to Jerusalem, or Rome.

Link Hudson.
From: minhtri@ccc.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bookstore
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:12:03 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation - Macrocode Development


     Does any one know of any christian (Roman Catholic that is) bookstore in
the San Jose - Sunnyvale area?  Thanks in advance.
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dislike of Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:28:29 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:

[[ many well-stated arguments deleted ]]

>But you can compare the number of bad apples to the number of good
>apples, and compare the expected results of different doctrines based
>on an undertanding of human nature. On this score a body of doctrine
>which considers all others evil and infinitely harmful does not come
>out so well. Christianity and Islam are the only major religions which
>hold such doctrines, and not surprisingly have historically produced
>the worst behavior.

I would like to summarize what I hear Bill saying.  We should evaluate
a religious or social doctrine by the parts of it that can lead to
harmful behavior; in the case of Christianity, the exclusiveness built
in to the system can lead to hatred and oppression.  Though the system
may include safeguards against its potential evil, these safeguards
may fail.  Historically we have seen that this is so.  We can weigh
the amount of good and evil to produce a judgement.

Well said.  However, I still question the usefulness of regarding
things in this way.  I maintain that no system will stand up under
this scrutiny.  Though the arguments are valid, they lead to the
conclusion that everything-- every religion, every social system--
fails and should be disliked or rejected.

Consider further the example of democracy in the United States.  A
democracy requires an informed electorate.  There are safeguards to
insure that the people are aware of the workings of government, and
the system has shown that it can work.  But in the U.S. the cloud of
secrecy and security classification that covers the nuclear weapons
programs has kept citizens uninformed and unable to use the democratic
process to change the spending priorities which were responsible for
the nuclear weapons race [Tom Harkin and C.E. Thomas, "Five Minutes to
Midnight"].  The instability produced by this failing could lead to
unprecedented loss of human life.  This evil is at least equal to the
failings of historical Christianity.

Because I am unwilling to throw out democracy based on this failure,
neither can I reject Christianity using this same measure.  In both
cases, the evil is resulted not from the doctrines themselves, but
from the failure to adhere to them fully.

Gregg Skinner


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
g-skinner@uiuc.edu    |    "Patriotism is slavery."  (Count Leo Tolstoy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sin
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:02:16 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In article <Apr.3.02.36.15.1992.6128@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> gotzel@triton.unm.edu (Paul Gotzel) writes:
>Could someone please give me a definition of sin?

Willard Smith (wcsa@iwtdr.att.com) responds with:
>IMHO, sin is an act which violates law, has a moral culpability attached, and
>is deserving of punishment. This requires that one actually has a knowledge
>of good and evil. I do not believe that sin can be derived from a state which
>one inherits.

Then there is my own interpretation (maybe it's someone else's but I forget):

Sin is anything one does without giving God priority.  It is something
that separates one from God.  You will find that all itemized sins 
can be subcategorized under this generalized definition.

Terence
--
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dislike of Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:49:59 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

In article <Apr.15.04.00.05.1992.4140@dumas.rutgers.edu> MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>In article <Apr.14.03.18.23.1992.14067@dumas.rutgers.edu>,
>
>This can pose a problem. Since the religion was started by god himself
>(or so we're told), god wanted it to happen. Since he is omniscient
>(or so we're told), god knew what would become of it--all of the atrocities
>that would be done in the name of god. God allowed it to happen, given
>that he knew the consequences; therefore, he wanted all of the evil
>perpetrated by christians to happen. Separating the history from Xianity
>is simply an attempt by present day christians to hide from what their
>predecessors did; it is also unjustified.
>
>Martin Schulte

Martin, aren't you making quite an assumption to say that God <wanted>
all the evil perpetrated by Christians to happen?
     God, in creating mankind, gave us Free Will.  We have exercised
this free will in terrible ways in the past, and we continue to do so
today.  But I don't see any reason for blaming the sins of man on God.
Man has to take responsibility for his own sins, not push it off on
God.  Most Christian scholars study the history of the Church to learn
the entire picture of what has happens, both good and bad, so the
mistakes will not be repeated.
     When mankind screws things up bad enough, God has stepped in.
And the ultimate resolution will be in the Final Day of Yahweh.  The
sheep and the goats will be separated, and all the evil done, even in
the name of God, will receive its just reward.
     But don't blame God for the sins of mankind.  They belong to us.

Shalom,                                      Len Howard
From: marquada@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (David A Marquam)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Why we suffer.
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:22:46 GMT
Reply-To: marquada@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (David A Marquam)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology


  Where does the Bible suggest that only those with the "proper" 
faith can survive in heaven?  Once we are in heaven, we are there to stay.   
There are no dangers that will cause us to fall away from Him.  The Bible  
says that "once we have tasted of the good life, we cannot fall back."  
Heaven is a place of refuge, a place where there is no pain or suffering.   
We currently are living in Satan's realm--earth.  We live here in an  
on-going test to see whether we are worthy to reign with God eternally.   
We are given tests and temptations to allow us to show our loyalty to God.
   In 1 Cor. it says that "God is faithful, He will not tempt man beyond  
what he can bear."  Everything that we undergo is a test that God has  
allowed Satan to place on us.  We can overcome anything if we believe and  
put our 100% faith in Him.  By overcomming the day to day trials we incur,  
we prove that we are worthy to be with Jesus.
   There are 3 basic forces that interact here on earth.  They are God,  
Satan, and what can be considered as "chance."  God does not personally  
tempt us or put disasters in our lives.  God is not capable of doing evil.   
He allows Satan to inflict us, but only to a certain degree--as was the  
case with Job.  Satan asked God if he could tempt Job, and God agreed.  He  
allowed him to do anything but kill him.  He took away his family, his  
possessions, his home--everything he owned.  Even though he had nothing  
physically left, Job had a faith that outstood anything else.  He still  
remained loyal to God and his cause.  
   Now we see how God and Satan are involved in our lives, but what about  
chance?  There are certain events that happen here on earth that are  
neither derived from God or Satan.  There are things that just happen in  
the course of our lives that are neutral.  This may be where deaths come  
into play.  It is "God's will that all should come to repentance and that  
none should fall away."  God does not want us to perish, in fact, his will  
for each of us is to live in heaven eternally with him.  It just so  
happens that people decide not to follow His will or His plan for their  
lives and they take their destiny into their own hands.  This is a  
guaranteed way to perish--to leave God's will.  Some Christians are  
blessed and are allowed to reign with Him earlier than others.  We should  
not be distressed about this, rather we should rejoice that they have went  
to a place of perfection.
From: nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and religion
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:31:46 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Apr.5.04.05.59.1992.8954@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <Mar.7.20.28.09.1992.16737@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>,
>swansond@cube05.ccs.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson) writes:
>> Okay, I'll bet this is a real novel idea, but is it possible that the
>> "force" we call evolution is something that was set in motion during
>> the Creation? Or God's continuous direct manipulation to suit His plans?
>
>The major problem with this hypothesis is that then we allow God to
>just be a side-player while the species continue to evolve. Thus
>God is not the ultimate creator, instead a starter.

   Note Dennis's phrase describing evolution as "God's continuous mani-
pulation to suit His plans." It strikes me that, if God does indeed
exist outside of Time, then to limit the entent of God's intervention
in the development of the Universe to just the first few moments of the
Universe's existence is to misunderstand the relationship.

   To put it more simply, I think Dennis' point is that the process which
we name "evolution" is the method which God, for whatever His reasons
might be, chose to use in developing the living creatures of the Universe.
In this sense, Creation is *happening*, at this very moment. Personally,
I prefer this perspective, since it doesn't limit God's influence on
the Universe, but rather makes *every* natural phenomenon a manifestation
of God's will.

Nathan Shafer
Dartmouth College, NH
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Self-love, self-esteem, and "saving the earth" as heresies
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:50:28 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <Apr.9.23.38.04.1992.25279@dumas.rutgers.edu> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>Since you are doing your best not to make the process more difficult than it
>has to be, I am guessing that you also consider redemption an ongoing
>process.  Aren't you progressing through this process?  Or is Jesus doing
>ALL the work.  

  I think that the issue here is that many do not have a very clear
idea of the landscape that the spiritual path travels through. They
sit back and think that since I'm saved, Jesus will take care of the
rest. The thing is, there are pits to fall into and mountains to
climb as a person is drawn ever closer to the Divine.

  But in the teachings we often receive, these things just are not 
brought up to our awareness. In our ignorance, because we do not 
know the process through which spiritual growth does happen, we limit 
our potential of what could be. This causes a limited spiritual 
vision of God, ourselves and the growth of the relationship that 
happens between these two tensions.



        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher
From: conan@wheatena.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Thorn in the flesh
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:12:18 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

If anyone wants to see the argument that St. Paul was a homosexual
argued in detail, Bishop Spong devotes most of a chapter to it
in his book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".   I
personally found his argument to be strained and unconvincing, but
I recommend that anyone interested read this.

Also, is this idea original to Spong?  Something he said made
me think so, but did he pick this up from some other scholar?

Yours in Christ, 

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: hancock@aero.org (Melody F. Hancock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Easter Request
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:49:45 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation

I just found out that I'm giving an Easter message this
Sunday for our Church.  I'd like to do something a little
different and recite quotes from famous or well-known
people concerning their feelings toward the Savior, the
crucifixion, or the Atonement.  Any interesting quotes or stories
out there?

Thankyou,
Melody Hancock
hancock@aero.org
From: jkohnen@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (John Hamilton Kohnen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Jesus returns in 1996?
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:43:50 GMT
Organization: The Max Robinson Institute.

1. The World was created in a seven day period comprised of six
days in which God worked and one (the Lord's day) on which he
rested.

2. A cycle of seven (the creation week) signifies a cycle taken
to completion.

3. Adam was created in 4004 B.C. 

4. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.
 
5. The 2nd coming of Jesus begins a 1000 year (the millennium)
reign of God's way on Earth before the final end of the World.

 
BC 4004		Adam's creation; begin symbolic day 1

  +6000		Days 1-6; 6000 years of human toil on Earth
   ----
AD 1996		THE 2nd COMING; begin day 7 or Lord's day,
 
  +1000		The Millennium or 1000 years of God's
		rule until completion of seven stage cycle.
   ____
   2996		7000 years; End of the World.

Jesus returns in 1996. Incidentally, some believe that Jesus was
born in 4 B.C., that early date, instead of the obvious 0, being
attributed to later calendar error. That would put him exactly 4000
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              John Kohnen
                     jkohnen@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu
                             GEnie J.KOHNEN
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: some musings on theodicy
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:10:06 GMT
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs

In article <Apr.15.03.45.15.1992.4073@dumas.rutgers.edu>, skb@ute-cmi.ctcpc
(Scott Butler, MN, x5036, (612) 894-6562) says:
>I have yet to see mention of the sovereignty of God.  What humbled Job
>was not just God's power, but the fact that He did not need to consult
>others as to how/why He created/decided what He would or wouldn't do.
>God is supreme, above reproach.

This poses a problem. If god is not to be judged, then why refer to him as
"good"? This is a judgement also. It would seem that he is just there, and
anything he does is just done--not called "good" or "evil". Defining god as
good doesn't help, either, as good is a reference and not a physical object.
Christians judge god all the time when they call him "good." In fact, this
is just their hope. Since god is not to be judged, whatever he does should
merely be accepted, with no judgement whatsoever. This implies that god can
do whatever he feels like with people once they die. Christians' hope that
they will go to heaven is only hope. If the bible is wrong--even intentionally
made wrong by god--no one could say anything. For all we know, atheists are
the ones who will be saved.

>Is it alright to get angry or express anger at God.

Well, anger implies that god did something wrong, and since that is judging
god, it's wrong by the bible's laws.

>  As Frank Miller writes in The Singer:
>"How can a loving God send people to hell?"
>"I do not send people to hell, but neither will I force someone
>into heaven that does not want to go."

Once again, calling god "loving" is a judgement, and unjustified. God can
do whatever he wants, and no one can say anything about it.
Also, this is hardly divinely inspired, and you are evidently supporting
this speaking for god when he remains silent on the subject.

>Many speculate that Hell is nothing more than eternal seperation from
>the presence of God...

I would ask these who speculate, how this differs from my everyday life. I
have no sense that there is a god-presence anywhere. My life is not very
agonizing as a result. Whether god is actually there is irrelevant, because
as far as I know (and that's all that matters here), god isn't there.

>This is the hope of all christians, to stand before God, fully accepted
>because of the sacrifice that Jesus made for us.  Completely clensed of
>all sin, and the consequenced of that sin.  Able to be exactly who God
>intended us to be from the beginning, free from the corruption of sin.

Just remember, this is your _hope_, that god doesn't "go back on his word"
and chuck you all into hell anyway. It is nothing more than hope, since
any claim that you have to be correct would be judging god. Claiming that
god is good could be the sin that damns you.

>Who is like the Lord Almighty?

Anyone on LSD?...

Martin Schulte
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: the church established by Jesus Christ
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:14:59 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Apr.15.04.05.38.1992.4160@dumas.rutgers.edu> mcr@meaddata.com (Mary Ries) writes:
>It seems that (some) people have rejected Christ...
>do you think ... they would finally recognize
>Christ as their savior, or that they would be come "good enough" to
>obtain salvation through their own deeds? (That doesn't seem right to
>me if they continue to reject Christ.) Or is there another meaning?

There need not be any conflict between rejecting what you have been taught
to believe is Christ and accepting Christ as He really is.  It's even
possible to be "eternally" damned by some human (and therefore imperfect)
branch of a church and eternally accepted by Jesus.


Carrie		ceb@dbrus.unify.com	x6244   ------------------------------+
|   "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then there will be   |
|   peace."					-- Anon.		      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+