HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: conan@skippy.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Honorary Catholic
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:31:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Oct.16.04.21.42.1992.27803@geneva.rutgers.edu> mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:

>By the looks of my mail the last couple of days, it would appear that
>the magic of "charitable-groups-exchanging-mailing-lists" I have become
>an honorary Catholic of sorts.  Literature detailing how I can have my
>intercessions included on a Christmas Novena at the Shrine of St. Jude
>was one clue, but the invitation to become a member of the Sacred Heart
>Auto League, complete with my own little dashboard reminder card...why,
>what born-and-raised LCMS Lutheran could resist an invitation like that?
>
>These items are interesting and mildly amusing, I have had many educational
>discussions with RC brothers and sisters in connection with this newsgroup,
>but they were holding out on me...nobody ever filled me in that I, too,
>could be a member of the Auto League.  What other things haven't you guys
>told me?  Fess up..........

Just about every Catholic over the age of 16 eventually gets a mailing
from the Sacred Heart Auto League.  But I hadn't realized that they
were involved in the ecumenical movement :-)!  It is par for the course
for most Catholics I know to make fun of the SHAL in a pleasant sort
of way.  But, if you think of it, wouldn't the world be a better place
if every Christian committed themselves to letting the love of Christ
shine through their driving?  (Rome would be a much better place to
drive :-).)

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO

P.S.  While we have often talked on the net about Marian devotions,
I have never heard any Protestant reactions to devotions to the Sacred
Heart.  Any comments?

P.P.S (To the Catholics) I have to prepare a Novena to the Sacred
Heart in the near future.  Any suggestions on sources?
From: U15708@uicvm.uic.edu (Mario Kefalopoulos)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Out of this world...
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:13:03 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

Now that the Search of ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence experiment has started,
I was wondering whether there is a consensus among Christian theologians
on the question of a conflict between Genesis and the possible existance
of anything intelligent out there.

I have the impression that the Bible focuses more on our 'free will' and the
consequences to our choice of belief rather than our intelligence, but I would
be very interested to know the most popular positions on the subject of E.T.
intelligence, if there are any.

Personal email or net responce would be most welcome.


[:> Mario

                                            ______   ____   ______   ____
Mario   Kefalopoulos  u15708@uicvm.bitnet  |  __  | |  _ | |  __  | |  _ | |
pa vu ga di ke zo ni  u15708@uicvm.uic.edu | | _| | | |__| | | _| | | |__| |
                                           | |____| |______| |____| |______|
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: modern councils
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:37:03 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

[In response to various discussions of ancient councils, e.g. Nicea --clh]

How do organizations like the World Council of Churches and other similar
ecumenical church organizations fit into this general picture?  

[As far as I can tell, the WCC claims to coordinate missions, and to
make public statements on behalf of certain portions of the church.
But it seems to be far from a position to make decisions of the sort
that were made in the early church councils.  It seems that Roman
Catholic meetings, e.g.  Vatican II, play much the same role as the
earlier councils.  However because of the divided nature of the
Church, they only involve one specific communion.  One could imagine
that the WCC would play a similar role for the liberal Protestants.
But in fact it doesn't.  Few people know what is it doing -- I don't
know of anybody who would regard that it has any power to settle any
debates.  

There are some meetings within specific traditions, e.g.  meetings of
Anglicans, and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.  They
typically have a more coherent membership, and their conclusions may
have more effect on the relevant groups than the WCC.  But they're
still not what I'd call really authoritative.  A few years ago the
World Alliance of Reformed Churches conducted a heresy trial of the
Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, over the issue of apartheid.
That's the nearest to an authoritative decision that I've heard come
out of a group like that.  I've often wondered whether that had any
effect on the Church in South Africa.  Perhaps some of our South
African readers could comment.

There have also been a number of ad hoc gatherings of people to deal
with specific issues.  I am thinking specifically of the gathering
that formulated the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and other
similar gatherings.  Some of these have been useful in helping groups
work out specific issues.  In some ways that might be what councils
like Nicea did, but of course in this case it's among subsets of the
Church that have roughly the same approach to a specific issue.

--clh]
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Was Sign of Jonah / 3 days etc.
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:53:32 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Oct.7.01.11.26.1992.10616@geneva.rutgers.edu> ccjwm@marlin.jcu.edu.au (John Miller) writes:
>
>I'd like to ask those of you who would know better than I how the 
>times "6th hour" and "9th hour" mentioned in Mark 15:33 relate to 
>time expressed as we would ie. am/pm?  I guess this is probably
>a FAQ, sorry, but I would like to know.

The counting started at dawn, which is roughly 6:00 AM in Israel.
Thus, the 6th hour is noon, and the 9th hour is 3:00 PM.  (I believe
time was marked at night by which watch it was; ie the first watch,
the second watch, etc.).

>Secondly, if Jesus was crucified in the evening, what was the 
>significance of the "darkness" since mere heavy cloud cover could 
>have caused just such an effect at night?

>	At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land till the
>	ninth hour.		Mark 15:33

As noted above, darkness from noon till 3:00 pm would be very noticible.
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Big Bang /== Moment of Creation [was: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause]
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:25:21 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Interzone Office

A brief (physical) aside: It is probably worth pointing out that a Big Bang
model does not necessarily _require_ a beginning or a moment of creation.

For the case of a "cyclical" Big Bang model this is clear.  However it is
also true for the case of the normal (i.e. "one-shot") Big Bang.

Specifically, work has been done by Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle[*] which
uses a simplified cosmology to model the Big Bang in complex time.  In this
model time has no boundary.  That is, even though there may be a limit to
how far one can travel back in time, there is no "beginning" to time in any
meaningful sense of the term.

The standard analogy of the North Pole holds here.  The fact that one can
reach a "north-most" point on the surface of the earth is _not_ the same as
saying one has reached the "northern edge" of the Earth.

Now, this is not to argue that this is actually the way that the universe
is structured --this is neither the place nor the time (nor the space-time ;)
for _that_ argument.  Nor do I wish to get involved in the quasi-
theological aspect of this discussion.  Rather I am simply making the point
that a Big Bang model does not _require_ a moment of creation.  An
important distinction for this discussion.

N

    [* For a reasonably straight-forward, totally non-technical, discussion
       of this model, see _A Reader's Companion (to Stephen Hawking's A
       Brief History of Time)_, pp 126-134.  Note that this book is not his
       _A Brief History of Time_.  Rather it is (in Hawking's phrase) "the
       book about the movie about the book".  ;) ]
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Prayer
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:54:47 GMT
Reply-To: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


 
                    NEEDED:  PRAYER FOR OUR NATION!

          If ever our nation stood in need of earnest prayer,
     it is now!  Perhaps praying for the nation at the time
     of a national election may seem a bit like praying for
     the Lord to deliver a soldier pinned down in a fox hole;
     *but,* fox-hole praying is infinitely superior to *no*
     praying.

          As inconceivable as it is that a nation founded on
     the Christian principles of the Holy Scriptures should
     now in its 216th year of existence be besieged by pagan
     ideologies *from within,* such is now our spiritual
     battle.

          The things we hold dear:  God, country, honor,
     patriotism, truth, honesty, character-- are recipient
     of a conspiratorial chisel that would hasten a natural
     erosion (even eradication!) of things too-long taken for
     granted.

          Those of us in the Christian Faith, who understand
     Biblical eschatology, see in this erosion of principles
     a hastening of the day in which our Lord Jesus Christ
     will return in the air to deliver us "from the wrath to
     come."  All of this notwithstanding, we are to "occupy"
     until He comes!

          With introspection foremost, we must humble our-
     selves in genuine repentance before the Lord, confessing
     in prayer our personal sins and the sins of our nation.
     In all of recorded history, the Lord has never failed to
     relent of His judgment upon a people who truly repented.

          "If My people...then I..." (II Chronicles 7:14).
--
From: robp@landru.network.com (Rob Peglar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christianity and economics
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:29:28 GMT
Reply-To: robp@landru.network.com
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

CLH mentioned that he'd like to keep the economics discussion centered
around aspects of Christianity.  I tend to agree; perhaps the parable of the dishonest manager would be worth (re-)reading in regards to the topic.

In regards to the borrow vs. save decision, I tend to side with Loren
on this issue;  however, it is clear that when the marginal cost of
capital is less than the marginal investment interest rate (i.e. rate
of return on liquid assets), one should borrow, not spend (their own)
cash.  Thus, the "don't buy it until the money is in the bank" is just
not always valid.  God gave us brains, no?

Rob



---
-legal mumbo jumbo follows-
This mail/post only reflects the opinions of the poster (author), 
and in no manner reflects any corporate policy, statement, opinion,
or other expression by Network Systems Corporation.
From: ba2cs252@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Leonidas Hepis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Tyre
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:23:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: geneva.Oct.16.01.23.00.1992.27248
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

I'm no expert on prophesy, but I thought I should point out a couple
of things.

In <Oct.10.02.18.12.1992.16535@geneva.rutgers.edu> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>The attack by Nebuchadnezzar on the mainland site and the taking of
>the island by Alexander the Great fulfill that part of the prophesy.
>The question is about whether or not Tyre was rebuilt.
> 
>This is repeated from before:
>Let me suggest the following.  Suppose I had a house and so was attacked.
>I and my whole family fled down the road and over the hill and across the
>river and built a new house.  My old house is left.  Someone comes in
>later and clears this house down to the ground.  Even if someone else
>later came and built on my old lot, it can be safely said that the house of 
>Pitts was not rebuilt.  

Are you suggesting that Tyre was not rebuilt, and that the one being referred
to (by the critics of the prophesy) is a 'different' city (Tyre2), thus Tyre 
itself was not rebuilt and the prophesy holds?  What should one then say 
about any prophesies of cities that *were* rebuilt in agreement with the 
prophesy?  We can't have two standards when evaluating these things.

I also disagree with your interpretation anyway.  I think it's valid to say
that if the city had the same name, and it was built at the same place,
then it was Tyre.

>Let's take another example.  Suppose I die and someone else takes my name.
>Have I returned from the dead?

No, but your name has.  In other words, your name is not a different name.
It's the same name.  Your objection may have implications on the prophecy
about the nation of Israel having returned to the biblical lands. 

-leo
From: ajg00@ccc.amdahl.com (Aerin Gabrielli)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God does exist! (Was Re: Non-Religious Practice)
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:52:06 GMT
Reply-To: ajg00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Aerin Gabrielli)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Oct.12.02.21.51.1992.19778@geneva.rutgers.edu> baillie@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Stephen Baillie) writes:
>schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>
>>wity@iastate.edu (Wity Ganda) writes:
>
>>>In article <Sep.23.23.58.05.1992.3331@athos.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
>>>>
>>>>     I'm a non-religious person.  What I don't like about
>>>>     religion is that I think it tends to split people apart
>>>>     more than uniting them.  One group say their god is real and
>>>>     another say their god is the only god.  Since all you religious
>>>>     believer claim there is a god, why can't you prove that there is
>>>>     one.  Oh, I know what you all will say, the Bible says there is.
>>>>     I've heard that line over a million times.  Sorry, but I'm not

While absolute evidence in the existance of God is not possible there is
strong evidence in science to suggest his existance.  You may find it
interesting to note that it was on this evidence that Einstien came to a
conclusion that there must be a God.  Science contains a great deal of
evidence which could be classified as circumstantial evedence.  While not
absolute in and of itself, it does provide good reason to suggest his
existance.  To research this for yourself I would suggest the book "The
Finger Print of God, written by two astrophysisist.  Thier
primary proof rests in the big bang theory, which virtually all
scientist have accepted.  Many accepted it hesitantly, because the
implication was that if there was a beginning to the Universe there had
to be a beginner, by the law of cause and effect, hence the existance of
a supreme being.  They go into this in much detail.  They also provide
evidence, from the forces of nature ie. strong nuclear force, weak nuclear
force, electromagnetic force etc..  Since, it appears that these forces
and many others have been finely tuned to allow the existance of life, and
since the odds suggest that simply random occurances cannot fully explain
their occurance, then this implies a supreme design to all things.  If
nothing else you'll find the material interesting.  Good luck.
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Created in his image?
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:49:53 GMT
Organization: FNAL

In article <Oct.14.02.53.51.1992.23798@geneva.rutgers.edu>
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>In article <Oct.13.01.33.31.1992.22065@geneva.rutgers.edu>
REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
>
>   The assumption is that human beings are summed up in their physical
>   body.  THis is a wrong assumption.  Angels are created in the image
>   of God (its in the Scriptures somewhere) therefore it would
>   disqualify that definition.  
>
>While I basically agree with REXLEX's anthropology and explication of
>the "imago Dei", I wonder where he gets some of his stuff. 

Are you talking to yourself, or do you want me to answer? 

> The
>creation of the angels isn't in the Scriptures anywhere, nor is there
>any description of their nature.

Well I certainly don't have time to give you all there is, but I'll wet your
appitite.  (Why don't you look this stuff up for yourself?)  
1) Creation. Col 1:16: aorist tense signifies a cesation, or culmination of a
series of acts; Mt. 22:28-30:  they themselves don't procrete thereofore they
are a direct creation of God;  Job 1:6; 2:1"sons of GOd" may also refer to
this; Lk 3:38:  just as Adam was a direct creation, just so the angels; Job
38:7:  though the exact time isn't given, we know that they were created before
the the creation of the earth and stars.
2)  Nature. Where does one begin?  The definition of personality, as fore
mentioned, does not find its root or base in what man is, but in what God is. 
Therefore, God is the archetype of personality.  A genuine person should
genuinely correspond to what God is.
  a. IN ESSENCE:
     1) Intellect: they learn (1 Pet 1:12); Satan in his pre-fallen state was
the "sum, full of wisdom" (Ez 28:12); they know God's plan by revelation (Rev
10:5-6; 17:1-18)
     2)  Emotions (sensibilities): able to express joy (Job 38:7);  able to
worship in humbled awe (Is 6:3ff; Rev 5:13ff) able to rejoice with
understanding the salvation of a sinner (Lk 15:10)
     3)  Volition/will:  "I will" (Is 14:12-15); God appeals to their wills
(Heb 1:6);  the exercise of will in demonic influence upon the will of man (1
Tim 4:1)
  b. IN PROPERTIES
    1)  Spirit beings (Lk 11:24,26; Heb 1:14)
    2)  Spiritual bodies
       a) they are spatial
       b) a purely incorporeal nature is metaphysically inconceivable
          and incompatible with the concept of creation
       c)  they are sexless
       d)  they are immortal (Lk20:36)
    3) Possessors of great power
I suppose you'll get me for these last ones seeing as how I didn't look up all
the references for you.
>
>I wonder why it is that some inerrantists feel it necessary to throw
>in "its [sic] in the Scriptures somewhere" when, in fact, it isn't.
>Doesn't that denigrate the very thing they hallow so much?
>
simply because we think that you have a good knowledge of the Scriptures
yourself and can immediately call to mind the reference.  Like the doctrine of
the Trinity, its there if you want to do your homework.

MBI offers a great angelogy correspondence course,
Rex
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: God's Slaves? (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:53:18 GMT

On <04 Oct 1992 10:41> Nichael Cramer said to All :

 NC>| [...] I'm not happy with the
 NC>|metaphor of Christians as God's slaves.  Part of it is because 
 NC>I'm a literary
 NC>|scholar and the word "slave" just doesn't carry the right 
 NC>connotation for me. 
 NC>|Slavery sounds like an involuntary relationship, and a 
 NC>destructive one -- one
 NC>|in which the person enslaved is degraded by his/her service.  
 NC>
 NC>Well, regardless of our modern discomfort with the term, 
 NC>"Slave" [DOULOS]
 NC>is precisely the term that Paul uses and he uses it repeatedly.
 NC>Now it is true that many translations attempt to soften this 
 NC>into, for
 NC>instance, "Servant" as a way of appeasing our 20th century 
 NC>sensibilities.
 NC>But to my mind, that is part of the problem and, more 
 NC>importantly, it does
 NC>a disservice to the text itself.

Whatever word is used, perhaps what we need to bear in mind is that God's 
servants/slaves do not possess him, they are possessed by him. 

Christians often use the term "possession" very loosely.

People often talk about "demon possession" when the Bible speaks about a 
person being "demonized" or "having a demon". Possession means just the 
opposite of "having a demon". It means the demon has you.

The world lies in the power of the evil one, and every person born into this 
world is a citizen by birth of the kingdom of Satan. Thus we are slaves of 
Satan, chattels of Satan, possessed by Satan, owned by Satan.

Thus baptism (in the Orthodox Church at least) is preceded by exorcism. The 
exorcisms declare that the candidate for baptism is a creature of God, that 
Satan's authority over him or her is a usurped authority, and that authority 
is denied. Only AFTER the shackles of Satan are declared to be broken do the 
candidates perform the voluntary act of facing the West to deny Satan and spit 
upon him, and turning (literally converting) to the East to accept Christ.

The difference between a servant and a slave is that a servant is a hireling, 
in it for the money. As slaves of Christ we know that we are not our own, we 
have been bought with a price. We have been tranferred from the athority of 
darkness into the kingdom of God's beloved son. There has been a transfer of 
ownership, of possession, from Satan to God. And it is only as slaves of 
Christ that we can be truly free.

Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa
P O Box 392
Pretoria
0001 South Africa
--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.5!Steve.Hayes
Internet: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
From: RADAMS@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Women's/Men's roles in Marriage
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:13:05 GMT

>> I think that the doctrine found in the bible that wives should submit to
>> their husbands is strictly a man-made doctrine. It appears to me to be
>> an attempt to scripturalize the social customs of the time that it does
>> appear in the bible. If a wife and husband submit to God alone, I think there
>> will be grounds for a happier marriage as well as allowing better communication
>> and mutual respect. Women and men are different but equal in the eyes of
>> God. The husband should serve the wife and the wife should serve the husband,
>> seeing God in one another. Submit to no man or woman, only to God.


>Would you mind saying a bit more about the basis for your judgement?
>I'm sure you realize that typically the concept of submission is
>based on various passages in Paul's letters.  It would be useful
>to know whether you don't regard those as authoritative, whether
>you object to the interpretation typically given to them, or whatever.


The word "submission" may be unfortunate if one means something other
than submission. Webster says to submit is "to yield to the power or
control of another". Therefore if a woman must submit to her husband,
this means to yield to the power or control of the husband. You might
say I am objecting to the interpretation typically given to them by
fundamentalists (I think the fundamentalists agree with Mr. Webster :-).
Wife and husband should serve each other and respect one another as
equals even though there are delightful differences which add spice
to life.  I really do suspect that social custom was written into
the bible on this one.

Roger
radams@cerritos.edu