HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fyao@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Frank Yao)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is God male, female, or neither
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:55:13 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

Regarding remarks that say God is male because Jesus addresses the "Father":

When Jesus walked the earth women were reagarded as property.  They
had no authority of any kind.  Hence for Jesus to have claimed that he
received authority from "the Mother" would have caused people to laugh
at Him, and consider Him crazy.  He would have had no followers, for
in that time, who would want to follow someone that followed a woman.

Calling God the "Mother" would also change the Jewish view of God in
such a way that no one would accept.  But why did Moses refer to God
as "He"?  Because the Israelites would have laughed at him for saying,
"Come on guys, our God, she will lead us out of slavery."  To those
people, women had babies and stayed at home.

So, again we see cultural prejudices sticking out its ugly head in the
Bible.

Also:
God is "I AM WHO I AM".  From what i do know, that means that God
exists and is without reference to anything, but Himself/Herself.  So
He is without being male or female.  He is just a convention that the
male dominated world at that time accepted and continues to this day.
I myself would have no problem with anyone calling God, "Mother".
When it comes to God, the most important thing is our relationship
with Him/Her.  Some relate better to "Father", others to "Mother".  It
makes no difference to HIM/HER.

LOVE IN CHRIST,

Frank Yao

[While 1st Cent. Judaism was hardly a 20th Cent. feminist ideal, it
is simply not true that women were property.  I think there's a bit
more going on than choosing a gender so that people would take
God seriously.  There were both male and female gods in the ancient
world.  They tended to come from rather different traditions, and
have different characteristics.  --clh]
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: CRI
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:46:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: athos.Jan.24.23.46.40.1993.2988
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

>>CRI is comprised of a staff from
>>various denominational backgrounds, but they are (I believe) mainly comprised
>>of members from the charismatic background (Assemblies of God, Pentecostal...)>>I could be wrong about the exact composition.
>
>I am in the Assemblies of God.  I have never heard of any such connection
>with CRI.  It would also be difficult for me to imagine a "mostly
>charasmatic" organization supporting John MacAurthur after the
>publication of his book "Charasmatic Chaos".  Do you have any references
>or other evidence?  This is not intended as a flame, it just would be
>interesting to find out more about what makes CRI tick, that's all.
>
As far as I know, they are not connected to a church.  They are an
organization separate from any church affiliation.  However, it is my
understanding (and I could be wrong), that the employees are comprised,
for the most part, of people who are from charismatic churches.  As an
organization, they take a stance for the supernatural spiritual gifts which
John MacArthur has taken a stand against.  Yet they support other
doctinal areas espoused by John.  Their main thrust as an organization is
to expose the falsehoods of cultic movements (Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses,
etc).
mc
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Earning salvation?
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:21:48 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

While tracing back a thread on Dodd and Gandhi I noticed the follow-
ing statement that I had missed before:  "Maybe this is what the
Protestants mean when they say no one earns salvation."

It is not just Protestants who say no one earns salvation.  Catho-
lics, too, believe that no one can earn salvation, and I assume that
Orthodox Christians believe it as well.

The Catholic Church does speak of merit and the value of good works,
which leads to the popular misunderstanding among some Protestants
that Catholics believe one can earn salvation, but in Catholic teach-
ing one merits reward, not salvation.  Salvation depends entirely on
God's grace.  Even the good acts that merit increases in reward can
be performed only by God's grace, although that is a different kind
of grace.

St. Paul, who placed great emphasis on the importance of faith and
who rejected the idea of earning salvation by works, wrote that God
"will render to every man according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6) and,
"Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be
accepted of him.  For we must all appear before the judgement seat of
Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, ac-
cording to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor 5:9-
10).  See also Our Lord's account of judgement in Matthew 25.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
        --  C. S. Lewis
From: jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: RE: School Prayer
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:14:54 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

I graduated from high school in 91.  When I was in high school, we tried to
get a group of Christian students together in the school before school to pray
and have a Bible study.  I was good friends with the principal and I spoke to
her about it, but she did not think that it would go over.  I don't remember
for what reason or the details exactly, but that isn't my point.  There was aa
church very conveniently located a few yards from the school.  So, we met
there every Tuesday morning and had great fellowship.  My point is that no
matter what me do and how strongly we believe that schools should have prayer,
we probably won't get it because the minority who is "offended" by it will
always win out.  Therefore, I challenge everyone to use the tools that they
have instead of fighting the system.  There has to be a church or someone's
house close enough to any school.

Another point, if you are really interested in getting schools to have a
prayer meeting for interested students, enter it as a club.  The system lets
other clubs into the school and it's only fair that they don't restrict
Christians.  If a gay group wanted to meet in the school, you know that they
would be allowed to because it's politically incorrect to stop them.  God
bless!
-- 
                        Jonathan Scott Gibson
                        JSG1@LEHIGH.EDU
                        BOX 479    X0264
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: "Crucify Him!" (Was Re: Robert Conquest's _The Great Terror_)
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:21:35 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

>OFM writes:
>
>> [ ... Most Christian meditations on the crucifixion put ourselves in the
>> place of those who killed Christ.  He died because of *our* sins.  We
>> don't truly understand our own sinful nature unless we understand that we
>> would have shouted "Crucify!" as well.  So the crowd spoke not for Jews,
>> but for humanity as a whole, but particularly for *us*.  --clh]

In the Good Friday prayer service in the Roman Catholic Church, the Gospel
reading is of Jesus's trial and crucifixion.  The various characters in the
drama are taken by different readers, with the congregation taking the part
of all the multiple characters, so when, for instance, the Roman soldiers
whip and taunt Jesus, we are the ones who jeer at Him.  The most horrendous
part of the service is when Pilate offers us the chance to liberate Jesus and
we respond, "Crucify Him!"  It is both humiliating and terrifying to say
those words unwillingly, standing decorously in the church, knowing that in
the right circumstances we probably would be shouting them with enthusiasm.
It's about the most naked moment I know of in the Church calendar.

WRT the attitude that would put all the blame for Jesus's sacrifice on the
individuals who carried it out:  I would humbly point out that if we (a.k.a.
the human race) hadn't fallen into sin in the first place, God would most
likely not have found it necessary to call us back to Him with this most
spectacular stratagem.  Blaming the Temple and Roman officials and soldiers
for His death is akin to blaiming the automobile for causing a child's death
in a hit-and-run accident.  If the driver is at fault, blame the driver!  We
are at fault for Jesus's death, and God is utterly God-like in His mercy and
forgiveness.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "There is less to this than meets the eye."		- Tallulah Bankhead   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jcai@phys.ksu.edu (jcai)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:47:56 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University

In <Jan.22.03.55.40.1993.6114@athos.rutgers.edu> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:

>Can somebody enlighten me on this question:

>If God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does He allow sufferings
>to exist?  Why did He create humankind with the propensity for
>Greed, Hatred and Delusions and then allow us to murder and harm
>each other?

>Thanks

>C. M. Tan

Tan, this is a good and big question . I do not think it is a simple question
that one can answer it by a few words .  

Basically the sufferings are a direct consequence of sin. If sin has never
entered into this world, there should have had no sufferings. Sin brings
more than sufferings, it brings death : physical and spiritual death.

Yes, God has the power to prevent all this  if He choose not to give men
free will . But God did give human race free will and men chose not to obey Him.
And sin entered the world. Is free will a bad thing? I bet not. We all enjoy
free will now . I am glad that I am not a robot . I think that the first test in
the Garden of Eden was meant to tell us that we can not know what is good
and what is evil without God's standard. Without God's law, we do not think
greed, hatred ,murder and such things as evil.  Those murderers would become
heroes without God's law. That we know these things are evil  indicates that
God has put some standard in our hearts. Adam and Eve knew what is good and
what is evil after they ate the fruit, they knew that only God is good, only
God's word is good, though it was too late.     

Yes, God is all loving that He wants to save us from sin and to give us
eternal life. He gave His son Jesus Christ to be a sacrifice for our sins
and by trusting in Jesus we can be saved and have eternal life. 
God is all loving that He suffered because of  our sins. Jesus suffered all
the pains and humiliations because of our sins. When He returns we will see
the print of the nails on His hands. Our God is a loving God , He suffered
all the sufferings we can possibly go through, He understands our weaknesses,
He wants us to turn away from our sins and come to Him. He promises  that
 "there shall be no more death,nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be no 
more pain." (Rev 21:4)  

Our God is a loving God. Without God we have no hope, nor peace, nor life;
and we are lost and will suffer for ever in our sins. God is all loving, He
has prepared the eternal life for every one of us. We can have His promise
of eternal life today by coming to Jesus. Please accept God's wonderful love
today . May His love and grace be with you always. Amen. 

--
jcai@phys.ksu.edu
From: johnsd2@lib103.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Theonomy vs. autonomy
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:53:42 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib103.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 687@geneva.rutgers.edu, tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>
> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
>>
>> The intent of the Law was to show us sin.  Remember that the
>> Law also declares a rebellious son should be stoned at the city
>> gate [Deuteronomy 21:18-21]. Are we to carry this out?
>
>Are you suggesting that a rebellious son was only offensive to God 3000
>years ago, and that now He's "gotten over it?"

:)

>Seriously, the answer to your question depends upon how you answer another
>(related) question:  If we don't use the explicit Law-Word of God as the
>standard for determining right and wrong (and punishment) then what
>standard shall we use?  Human reason?  Some other religious standard (say,
>the Koran)?  Majority rule?

The Quran, objectively, seems to be just about as good as the Bible.
(if you can see a distinction, blurt it out).

What we CURRENTLY use in the US is a combination of majority rule and some
"laws about laws" (Constitution, etc) to keep the tyranny of the
majority at a minimum.

>Biblically speaking there are only two choices; biblical law or human law. 

False dichotomy. What about NO law?

Incidentally, Atheistically speaking (:) there is only once choice
(if you want laws): human law. How is the Biblical Perspective better?

>God's standard or man's standard.  Autonomous law (man's standard) is
>arbitrary law, and the eventual result is tyranny.

An interesting hypothesis.

I see no way to either verify or disprove it tho.

>  Only God's law is
>perfect, just and good  -- a delight (cf. Psalm 19:7; 119:77).
>

Well, if you say so. Imho, only a believer would; and not all of them.

But it does occur to me that according to the Bible we muched
on teh fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, should
we not be able to distinguish for ourselves if we try? More
relevantly, did this not give us the ability to judge whether
a law is "good", at least (if not just, anyway)?

Just a thot for you.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: mchung@ee.tamu.edu (Maranatha Chung)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Info request: Correspondence Course of Biblical Greek
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:55:48 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

Dear Friends,

I would like to study Greek by myself. Can anyone out there have info
as to where can I find a good correspondence course of biblical greek?
Private email will be more than welcome at mchung@ee.tamu.edu.

Thank you very much.

Maranatha Chung
Texas A&M University
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bye-bye Home Bible Studies
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:53:13 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Jan.20.00.14.23.1993.941@geneva.rutgers.edu>, dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
>      I know that such zoning laws did get passed in Colorado Springs
> several years back.  One guy had set up a home Bible Study fellowship that
> was meeting in his basement every Sunday morning and the city made him
> stop.  I gather the neighbors were complaining about all the cars parked
> on the street.  But I understand he only had 30 people max in his house,
> so I wouldn't think that it would be that bad.  The city said that he had
> established a church in his residence and that this was not permitted.  Of
> course the early church always met in homes and never had dedicated
> buildings for that purpose, so I suppose someone could argue that there is
> a mandate there....  <grin>

Park an extra 30 cars on a regular, recurring basis, and folks where I
live would probably be pretty upset, too.  They'd take up more than
600 feet of curb space.  The same would apply to running any sort of
'business' out of your home that attracted 'customers'.

>      Nevertheless, this sort of government intrusion into what a person
> can or cannot do in their home is unwelcome by many.  It should not be the
> government's concern as to what a property owner discusses with guests in
> his home.  Whether they are all watching a football game, or whether they
> are meeting for prayer or whatever, should be covered by privacy laws.

Uh, huh.  except that having thirty guests in for football won't
happen *every* Sunday, year 'round.  If he'd held a party for 30
people at a specific time every week, the neighbors would stll have
had a legitimate gripe.  I think much of this sort of zoning comes
down to the old definition of 'your right to swing your arm ends where
my nose begins.'  Hosting the activities you describe impacts the
neighbors, too.  I suspect that the issue could be much more
successfully fought on grounds of 'freedom of assembly' than 'freedom
of religion'.  "Freedom of religion" doesn't appear to be 'freedom to
establish a church just any old place.'

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ARMSTRONGISM
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:37:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Jan.20.00.03.40.1993.697@geneva.rutgers.edu> rpitts@darth.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <Jan.17.22.52.17.1993.3962@geneva.rutgers.edu> norris@mit.edu writes:
>Christian Research Institute (CRI): They are very conservative

Depends on your definition of conservative.  I recently (within last 6 mos.)
heard one of their shows on the radio (Bible answer man) in which they
stated that it was the death of Christ, and NOT His shed blood that atoned
for man's sin.  This is a view alledgedly held by John MacArthur and they
were defending him against a host of letters from pastors and institutions
around the country which labeled such a view a heresy.  I dare say that 
a Christ who would have died without the shedding of any blood would not
have sufficed under God's plan for atonement.  There are several scripture
references (OT and NT) that state the without the shedding of blood, there
is no remission of sin.

> and have 
>well read and strong arguments and guests, which promote traditional-
>orthodox views.

Again...not always as was the case above.  CRI is comprised of a staff from
various denominational backgrounds, but they are (I believe) mainly comprised
of members from the charismatic background (Assemblies of God, Pentecostal...)
I could be wrong about the exact composition.

  They also have some periodicals and a list of good books.  
>They focus on cults, but not exclusively.  CRI was founded by Dr. Walter 
>Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults, among others) and now CRI continues 
>on, after Dr. Martin's death.  They  are not anti-charismatic nor anti-catholic

They are, indeed, mostly charismatic and they are very delicate with all
who call, though they would deem Catholicism as incorrect in many matters.
They do have some good articles.


mc
From: ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Science and God
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:20:10 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN

------------

> I agree with Mr. Baskette in that some of the methods science uses can
> resemble the methods religions use. However, one main difference yet
> exists. Science bases itself in reality, as opposed to religion.
> Religious people still use science to get by in reality; religion,
> on the other hand, is not required in science. And that is the problem
> to me as an unbeliever. Religion seems to me to be an additional set
> of beliefs which seem unnecessary. I can acknowledge that I have beliefs
> which I use to function. But I don't see the relevance of religion.


We don't need religion to function here on earth, nor to do science.
But is functioning successfully (maybe as a scientist?) the point of our
existence?  If so, then you're right, and religion is a waste of time.

Religion answers the questions of "why I am here", "what is the purpose
of my life"?  One can easily go through life and never ask these 
questions.  That doesn't mean that they are not important questions
and that knowing the answers wouldn't make our lives better.

I believe that God created us to know him, to love him, to need him,
to fellowship with him.  And since I have let God into my life, my
life has improved in many ways.  After all, he is alot smarter than 
I am (even with my B.A. and M.S.in Math) and willing to help me if I ask him.  
I'll be happy to share specifics with you if you want.

Cam Kaszas
ck10322@medtronic.com
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Adultery, non-marital sex, and forgiveness
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:51:36 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

gslade@cyberstore.ca (Greg Slade) writes:

>jcj@tellabs.com wrote:
>: That also raises the issue of non-marital sex.  Can a Christian say 
>: with clear conscious to a potential spouse, "I can't marry you because you 
>: had sex with your high school honey/ex-fiancee/whatever"?  If we are 
>: taught to forgive then we should also forgive them that, shouldn't we?
>: You might say a *true* Christian would wait for marriage, but we also
>: know the flesh can be weak, people are sinful (willingly and unwittingly)
>: and people make mistakes.  What about someone who is new to the
>: faith and truly regrets their past?

I think there is a very clear Scriptural answer to that: "Do not call
anything impure that God has made clean" (Acts 10:15) Current
attitudes and practice are much more important than past actions.
Otherwise, repentance, forgiveness and cleansing mean nothing.

>the factors to take into consideration.  Personally, I rank simple sanity
>rather high on my list of priorities in a prospective mate.  Previous sexual
>experience is the same as adultery within the marriage.  It does not make 
                   ^^^^ 
Pardon?  Did you really mean it that way?  In the case of adultery,
there is the breach of a solemn covenant made with the spouse.  It is
a (grievous) sin against a specific individual (and I suggest that
applies, to a lesser extent, to sex with a third party during the
pre-marriage "courting" or engaged relationship as well.  I think the
Christian dating idea would be: "We don't do it with each other: but
not with anyone else either").  This offense is *in addition* to the
emotional "ghosts" created by the experience itself.

But fornication which took place before the relationship started,
while it may create a few "ghosts" that need to be dealt with, does
not have that same connotation of offense against the current partner.

>continuing the marriage impossible, only more difficult.

Agreed.  Check out Hosea and *his* marital troubles, poor guy.
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn