HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: C.R.I.
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:00:20 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Aug.27.03.04.34.1992.3158@athos.rutgers.edu> bdonison@sol.uvic.ca (Only AMIGA!) writes:
>Does anyone have C.R.I.'s Canadian mailing address?
>btw. CRI stands for: the Christian Research Institute, they produce the
>radio show, the Bible Answer Man, I highly recommend giving them a listen!
>
>Brad

I tried email, but it failed.  Just in case you don't have the US
address, here it is:

Christian Research Institute (CRI)
P.O. Box 500
San Juan Capistrano, California 92693 USA

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (8-26)
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:36:36 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Wednesday, August 26:

     The overseer should therefore be . .. not a drunken brawler, not a 
smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money.  
<1 Timothy 3: 2, 3>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Baptismal Hair-Splitting (Was Re: And what *is* a Christian?)
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:27:03 GMT

Mark Christensen writes:

>I believe that doctrine is VERY important in our walk as disciples
>for Christ. 

Amen!  But what is "doctrine" as opposed to "human interpretation"?

I believe what Dan is getting at (please correct me, Dan, if I'm wrong!)
is the following:

A generally accepted NT "doctrine" of baptism:

All who accept Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior are commanded to be 
baptized in his name.  This baptism is described in many ways and for 
many purposes but ultimately it is a command of Jesus.

Some Church of Christ "interpretations" held as "doctrine" by many (but not
all of us!):

Baptism is the "fifth step" in God's "plan of salvation".  We "contact the
blood of Jesus in the watery grave of baptism".  And yes, I have even
seen the awful equation "Baptism = Salvation"!  

But these are all imperfect attempts to understand a divine command to be 
baptized into Christ.  Every attempt made by mortal man, no matter how 
sincere, to understand the mind of God as revealed in his Word, will be 
marred.  And yet, we must try to understand and move ever closer to him.  
We will approach him from very different perspectives, but if we are sincere
in our search for divine truths, I believe these perceived differences will 
tend to become less "doctrinal" in nature.

Yours in Him,

Todd Stevens
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com
From: dwaddell@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com (David Waddell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Faith and Works: Reflections
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:45:35 GMT

Hi,

I have been following this thread for quite awhile now and the question of
whether faith alone or works together with faith are the basis of salvation.

I have found that the opprotunities to do works present themselves to us
without our going and actively seeking them. When was the last time you
stopped for a disabled motorist or opened a door for an elderly person or
looked out for someone elses child at the park or took a homeless person
to the local shelter?

My conclusion is: God gives us many choices and whether we heed the Word
and do the right thing at the right time is up to us as Christians. 

Footnote: Try and remember the parable of the good Samaritan.        

____________________________________________________________________________
JESUS IS LORD!                     |
                                   | The opinions expressed here are mine
From Here to There                 | and not those of my employer.
From There to Here                 |
Funny Things are Everywhere        | David A. Waddell dwaddell@pyramid.com
-Dr Seuess                         | Pyramid Technolgy Corp.
                                   | San Jose California USA
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Parable of the Talents
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:52:27 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Aug.25.01.18.30.1992.18498@athos.rutgers.edu> 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes about the parable of the talents

>But: *why* do we feel that if the slothful servant is being
>presented in a poor light (as we certainly must) the master must be
>being presented in a good light?  Is this a necessary assumption,
>i.e., that if one character in a parable has an allegorical
>interpretation for its reference, all the other characters must
>also?  Perhaps the master does not have, while the servant has, an
>allegorical meaning.

I believe this refers to stewardship.  God will give us certain talents,
possessions, responsibilities, etc.  If we use them wisely (and I would
suggest that wisely means for His work or in His will), then we will
be blessed with even more.  If not, then even what we have been given
will be taken away.
Mark
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:53:09 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Aug.30.03.10.42.1992.12700@athos.rutgers.edu>, dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick) writes:
> 
> Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 both contain the injunction, "Thou shalt
> not steal".  There doesn't seem to be an exception allowed for stealing
> with a ballot box.
> 
> The policies of our national government for a long time have been built
> on ideas of taking from those that have and giving to those that don't
> have.  

What about "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's"?

Isn't there room for both public *and* private charitable activity?
(For that matter--would there even *be* public activity of this type
if private charitable activity had been sufficient to satisfy needs?)

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: defining fundamentalism - query
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:30:59 GMT

On <26 Aug 1992 20:42> thanks for noticin'... --Eeoyore (5:7104/2) said to All 
:

 tfn>  There is, in fact, a clear difference between orthodoxy and  
tfn>fundamentalism.
 tfn>The latter is historically naive; tends to be restorationist 
 tfn>inasmuch as
 tfn>it attempts to restore early new testament Christianity.  
 tfn>Hence, it is stongly
 tfn>non-confessional.  Orthodoxy, on the other hand, wishes to 
 tfn>maintain historical
 tfn>continuity via creeds (confessions).

While it is true that Orthodoxy wishes to maintain continuity, it is through 
far more than creeds. Orthodoxy claims to be a direct continuity of New 
Testament Christianity because it has maintained "the apostles teaching and 
fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers" through twenty centuries. 
It is all these things, and not just creeds, that provide the continuity.

Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa
P O Box 392
Pretoria
0001 South Africa
--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qumran finding
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:40:04 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>[When reading this, please note that the information is from the
>reviewer himself, *not* from the book being reviewed.  --clh]
>
>From a review by Charles A. Coulombe of _The Gospel According to Jesus_         by Stephen Mitchell that just appeared in _New
>Oxford Review_ (Sept 1992 p 29):

O'Callaghan, a Spanish Jesuit, published his transcription and
analysis of Qumran fragment 7QFr15 in the early to mid 1970s in the
journal _Biblica_.  His conclusion was that the Qumran authors had
access to New Testament writings, thus the writings in question (e.g.,
the Gospel of Mark) could be dated to a much earlier time than was
previously thought.  7QFr15 was paleographically dated to 40 A.D.,
much earlier than traditional datings of the NT documents from which
O'Callaghan claimed they quoted.

Reaction to O'Callaghan was both swift and negative.  There are indeed
many problems associated with O'Callaghan's conclusions.

1. The writing on 7QFr15 is very indistinct.  Other scholars took
issue with O'Callaghan's reconstruction of the text.  7QFr15 can be
reconsructed such that there is no parallel with NT passages.

2. The parallel passages are very brief.  In general, only two or
three words together correlate to their NT counterparts.  The rest of
the text appears original.  Some scholars conclude that the parallels
are merely concurrent but separate examples of a common diction --
that they had nothing to with each other.

3. Similarly, the "quoted" material is largely insignificant to the
meaning of the Qumran text.  The context of those phrases in the
Qumran texts does not, in general, correspond to the context of the NT
text.

All the commentators and scholars I have consulted denounce
O'Callaghan's conclusion that Qumran authors copied from
then-available NT books.  The general feeling seems to be that NT and
Qumranian authors worked in a similar literary environment, and as
such certain elements of style and diction -- catchy phrases, if you
will -- persisted in both the Qumran and NT traditions.  They see
little evidence for any kind of direct influence either way.

What is more interesting is that these results have been available and
published for nearly twenty years.  That O'Callaghan should be debated
upon today is rather odd.  His ideas are essentially dead and buried
in mainstream Dead Sea Scroll research.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | I was a rutabaga in a former life.
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Baptismal Hair-Splitting (Was Re: And what *is* a Christian?)
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:07:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

>(1)  Neither Alex nor Billy had any problems accepting Gaius as their brother.
>What troubled them was their attempt to explain Gaius' experience in abstract,
>doctrinal terms.  There is an irony that Alex and Billy could each accept 
>Gaius, but could not accept each other!  No doubt there are some false 
>doctrines floating around today.  But my conviction is that * much * of what 
>divides us is not the * reality * our doctrines are trying to describe, but 
>rather the semantics and artificial systemization contained in our 
>descriptions.  And I think that's a shame.
>
>(2)  Our 1st century brothers were men with a deep experience of Christ.  Those
>of us who have been like Billy and Alex (I'm the chief of sinners here) have 
>had deeper experiences with intellectual abstractions about Christ than with 
>Christ himself.  Is Billy right and Alex wrong?  Or is Alex right and Billy 
>wrong?  My answer: the truth probably doesn't lie on a spectrum with Alex on 
>one end and Billy on the other.  The truth probably lies on a different plane 
>altogether.  And poor, naive Gaius seems to be dwelling on that plane!
>
Dan, I'm not sure what you're really trying to say here.  Please correct me if
I am wrong but it sounds like you're saying that our doctrinal views don't really
matter, only our salvation in Christ.  I would agree that the gospel of
salvation is of utmost import, for nothing else then means anything if one is
not saved.  But then, why all the writings of Paul, or the Revelation given
to John, or the other writings of the NT?
I believe that doctrine is VERY important in our walk as disciples
for Christ. There are even those who claim salvation but walk in doctrines
contrary to the teachings of the NT.  I believe this entire thread, however,
was started by a difference in views of baptismal regeneration.  This issue
IS at the very heart of the salvation message and IS of utmost importance.
The differing opinions on this are whether salvation is by grace alone or
grace plus baptism.  There is a Boston Church of Christ member here where I work,
and he adheres to the saved only by faith and baptism...and then, only IF
you are being baptized believing that it is necessary for your salvation.
He does not believe that I, being saved and then baptized in obedience to 
Christ, am really saved because I got baptized for the wrong reason. Does
this issue have importance...of course it does.  There is only one truth,
and I believe it important to discern from God's word what that truth is
and to obey it.  If we took the approach of "as long as he's saved, let him
interpret the Bible as he sees fit", then I say we have lost much of the
message of the Bible.  Paul rebuked several churches for straying from 
doctrinal teachings...even though they were saved.  False or watered down
doctrine will lead to ungodly lives and eventually to churches who become
apostate.
From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: healing statistics
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:27:45 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <Aug.26.02.30.35.1992.8369@athos.rutgers.edu>, judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
> 
> Right now you are doing exactly what you need to do.  You are mourning.  Cry,
> wail, and gnash your teeth.  Yell at God if it makes you feel better (I could
> be wrong, but I think God forgives those of us who yell at Him during our
> trials - childbirth being the last time I told Him off).  

You might find the passage where Jeremiah tells God that he is like
a stream (or well) that has run dry, an interesting one. If my memory 
serves me correctly it is in Jeremiah ch 15.  God is certainly willing
to forgive us if we yell at him, its part of his job. Jeremiah was required
to do some repenting after his outburst though.

> Judy Leedom Tyrer
-- 
                                                                      ___
Bill Rea                                                             (o o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre| E-Mail       b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury          | or         cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand         | Phone +64 3 364-2331 Fax +64 3 364-2332 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Papacy
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:18:01 GMT

On <23 Aug 1992 08:48> Joseph H. Buehler (5:7104/2) said to All :

 JHB>The Papacy -- the See of Peter -- and the Faith are inseparable.
 JHB>Wherever the Papacy is, there is the true Faith.  Whether one calls
 JHB>the See of Peter the rock, or the Faith of the See of Peter, is a
 JHB>matter of indifference, because of the inseparability.  The Fathers
 JHB>sometimes use the one, sometimes the other.  There is a discussion of
 JHB>this exact point in St. Augustine.

I would question the grounds of your identification of "the papacy" with the 
"see of Peter". The bishop of Alexandria was called "pope" long before the 
bishop of Rome was, and his title is still today "Pope and Patriarch of 
Alexandria and All Africa". 

Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa
P O Box 392
Pretoria
0001 South Africa

--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:30:02 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Aug.30.03.13.43.1992.12769@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>As the moderator explained, "see" is from the Latin word for "seat".
>Similar modern usage would be as in "seat of power" or "seat of
>government."
>
>Catholic bishops have a chair in their cathedrals (a word itself
>coming from Latin for "chair") that they use during liturgical
>ceremonies.  This comes from a very early custom in the Church; this
>chair, or seat, is a symbol of their authority.  Christ Himself speaks
>of the scribes and Pharisees as seated on the chair of Moses (Matt.
>23:2); it would seem to be a very old usage.

   An interesting sidenote on bishops' chairs.  The early Church
historian Bishop Eusebius (ca. AD 260-339), in his _The History of the
Church_, writes of the throne of the Apostle James, "first to receive
from the Saviour and His Apostles the episcopacy of the Jerusalem
church," as being still preserved in his day.  In other words, he said
the actual chair used by James as bishop was still in existence in the
early AD 300's.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re. money and mouths
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:40:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Let's look at some factoids:

General charitable giving in the U.S. -  about 2 to 3% of gross

Percentage of the Christians  who Tithe (10%*)  about 18%


* Tithe - some folks take 10% of the gross, some the net


I don't have a factoid for the percentage of the general population
who "Tithe" or better to charity so we can't get a true comparison
to see how we rate with the "World".

I can say that if my factoids are true, then Christians do not have
any reason to pat ourselves or each other on the back about how
generous we are because we can do a bunch better.  Note that I'm
just using the Tithe as a metric not a LAW.

We can't use the fact that the Socialist-minded folks already have
their charity bet covered by their taxes and we don't, because that
profoundly limits God by buying into the fixed pie size theory.

Who cares if we have to pay twice, or three times ?  We need to obey !

Bobby - akgua!rjb


[Note that in NT times, there were several different obligations making
up the tithe.  I saw an estimate that their typical net impact with
around 30%.  --clh]
From: bandor@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au (Tony McGregor)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christian Growth Newsletter
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:42:52 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.


	       The Christian Growth e-Newsletter


I have enjoyed receiving the Christian Growth Newsletter from Dan
Smith over the last year or so and was disappointed to hear that Dan
is no longer able to produce it.  So much so that I would like to put
some effort into seeing it continue.

The idea behind the CGN is that Christians need to communicate with
one another and computer networks provide some unique advantages for
communication. Newsgroups serve one need but tend to be a discussion
forum, particullarly for Christian/non-Christian debates. A newsletter
is intended to inform.

Are you interested in receiving a monthly electronic newsletter of
short Christian items including:

     o Book reviews
     o Short scripture studies
     o Poetry
     o Prayers and prayer requests
     o Comments and options on Social issues
     o Scripture background 
     o testimonies
     o Software reviews
     o anything else of general interest to Christians with internet access.

I expect to write some items myself but hope that members of the list
will contribute items as well.

If you are interested in receiving the newsletter email me
(Tony.McGregor@rdt.monash.edu.au or bandor@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au).

If you already have something to contribute please let me know.


God bless you

Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony McGregor ( Tony.McGregor@rdt.monash.edu.au )  
Department of Robotics and Digital Technology, Monash University
PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Vic 3145, Australia  
Phone: +61 3 5732014  Fax: +61 3 5732345
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: thomasp@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl (Thomas Payerle)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage to a Catholic outside a Catholic Church
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:41:26 GMT
Organization: NIKHEFK

In article <Aug.26.02.02.32.1992.7623@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
>Now, I have another question:
>
>Can a divorced man be ordained to the priesthood?  I once heard of
>something like this, but don't recall where.  And does the Catholic
>church accept Episcopalian (sp?) priests who are married and then
>ordain them as Catholic priests who are married?
I cannot answer with certainty to your question about "divorced" priests,
but I have met a priest who had a wife and one or two natural children.
The priest had converted from Episcoplalianism I think, although it may have
been the Anglican church from which he converted.  I believe he needed
special dispensation from the pope.  
This would lead me to believe that technically a divorced man could become
a priest (if a married convert from another religion  could become a
priest, than I would think any married man could become a priest assuming
he receives papal dispensation (which is unlikely).  A "divorced" man is
technically just a married man in the eyes of the Church, I believe, as
divorce is not recognized.), but this is just legal supposition.  I think
that there are no "divorced" priests (with living ex-wives).
				Tom Payerle
From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: prayer
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:31:23 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <Aug.25.02.12.46.1992.19006@athos.rutgers.edu> Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>
>---- I am interested in knowing what to pray for Jane.  Perhaps you could
>shed some light on the things that are necessary.  I have had an extremely
>difficult time figuring out what things to pray for, or to pray at all. 
>You may condsider this beneath you, but I would enjoy knowing.
>
I think you may be making a common mistake regarding prayer.  There are
far more forms of prayer than simply prayers of supplication (asking for
something).  There are prayers of thanksgiving, prayers of adoration, prayers 
of affirmation, etc.

If you are really wondering what to pray for, or to pray at all, try giving 
thanks for all the wonderful things in your life.  

>How can you expect things from a God you neither see, feel, hear, or touch
>physically?  The bible says that "now faith is the substance of things
>hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen"  I don't read anything
>into that which says you can expect things simply because you ask for them.

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek and you will find; knock and the door 
will be opened for you.  For everyone who asks recieves, and everyone who
searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.  Is
there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone?
Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake?  If you, then, who are
evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your
Father in heaven give food things to those who ask him!" 
						Matthew 7:7-11

And, while you might not define it as "physical" I have felt the arms of
our Lord surround and comfort me.  I have heard His guidance in times of
need (minor need at that).  The spiritual and the physical are not as
disparate as you think.  
-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake