HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wilcox@vax.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Wilcox, Mathematical Institute, Oxford, (2)73571)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Protestant convent?
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:47:24 GMT

In article <Jan.6.01.42.50.1993.2706@geneva.rutgers.edu>, xkkreit@ericsson.se (Erik Reitsma TX/UB VL4031 94009 ) writes:
> Are there any protestant convents, anywhere in the world? If so, could you
> give some information about those?

The Church of England has convents in England; other Anglican churches probably
do elsewhere in the world. Religious houses were forbidden at the reformation
in England but in the 19th century, with the Oxford Movement Catholic revival
in the Church of England, they began to open again. As far as I know their
rules are based on the pre-reformation catholic rules; certainly as far as
outward appearance goes an Anglican brother or sister is indistinguishable from
a Roman Catholic one. At least one convent/monastery near here still preserves
rules like silence at meal-times, with readings from religious texts, and
accepts guests for short or long retreats. The brothers and sisters work and
act as spiritual guides. They seem to be used by Evangelicals as well as 
Anglo-Catholics, despite an apparent resistence at some stage by Evangelicals
who saw them as more dangerous popery.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:51:21 GMT
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501

athomson@otago.ac.nz (Alastair Thomson) writes:
: ...
: A general comment on capital punishment. Do we have the right to take away the
: opportunity for someone to receive Christ? In killing someone we cut short the
: time they have to hear and respond. Whatever the crime we do not have the right
: to condemn *anyone* to eternal damnation, that decision belong to our loving
: and just God. 
: 

I understand how you feel since this was the stand that I took 16 or so years
ago.  However, I'm not sure this really paints a clear and true picture of
reality regarding our rights and responsiblities and those of the government.

As individuals, we have no right to run out and judge other persons and put
them to death because they have done a terrible thing in our eyes.

But, for the people of the land to join together and agree upon a sentence
of death or prison as a deterrent to crime is not the same.  The government
may not be perfect, but as the Bible says, it does not bear the sword for
nothing.  The law is laid down.  The criminal considers the law and his own
action, and in choosing to violate the law, he chooses his own sentence, so
in effect it is the criminal who kills himself and not those who uphold the
honor of the law by carrying out the committment that the government made to
its people.

If the government makes a statement that murder is punishable by death, then
it is morally bound to carry out the sentence it has promised its people.
When the government is slack, wimpy, and limp writed and too weak to carry
out its committment, you have an American people much like the people you see
here in our land today--sloppy and, as the Japanese have said it so well,
very lazy, undisciplined, immoral, and a hot-bed of disease--plagues added
as promised in the book of Revelation.  Nobody feels safe in a country that
has become so weak.  People are imprisoned in their homes.

But, as we approach the end times, things like this will happen!  So don't
be disappointed.  The Lord and those on His side are still the winners in
this cruel and ugly battle.  Yes, the devil has his weapons, but we have
the armor of God, so don't let yourselves become discouraged!

	In Christ,

	    Dan
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Principles of Interpretation?
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:55:55 GMT

I'm looking for a short list (I'll go to the library later, thanks)
of principles that folks have found useful for biblical interpretation.

For instance, the Reformers (I've noticed one can usually get OFM 
to comment if one mentions the Reformers, and esp. Calvin Kline :-) )
contributed the principle 'let Scripture interpret Scripture'
which is nice, I suppose, but pragmatically not very useful in
talking with skeptics; nor is the sense of such a principle
immediately obvious (as a principle, it itself requires interpretation!)

I'm aware of (through the Brittanica article 'Biblical Literature')
Hillel's 7 principles; these don't appear very useful to me either
(ex: 'let the greater explain the less, and vice versa'- this
covers a multitude of hermenutical sins, I'm sure! :-) ).

So, what sort of principles are people aware of? What helps one
determine, for instance, that verse A. ('women should cover
their heads in church') is peripheral but verse B. ('in Jesus
Christ there is neither male nor female') is crucial?

Thanks


Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:


 Te totum applica ad textum;
 rem totam applica ad te.
From: martin@scs.carleton.ca (martin chidyausiku)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:53:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Hi,

I would like to add a point to this ongoing discussion:

Reading some of the postings one would almost think God was not compassionate
under the Old Testament.

Sure, God is rich in compassion and under the Old Testament the laws were so
hard that no man could totally keep them all. To break the Sabbath was
just as deadly as murdering or adultery. David, a man after God's own heart,
committed adultery, murder and lied, yet he was not killed. Does God have
double standards ? No, He is so compassionate that He repents Himself of the
evil he has pronounced upon a person, city or country if the people admitt
they are wrong and are willing to make mends. Some Examples are, Nineveh and
King Ahab. With King Ahab (one of the worst kings of Judah) God had
pronounced evil things to come upon him, yet when he met the prophet Elijah on 
one occasion, he humbled himself and God said to Elijah, because Ahab had 
humbled himself thus, God would not bring all the promised evil during his 
reign but later. God's own law required the creation of cities of refuge for 
offenders who had committed death-worthy crimes. Noone was supposed to kill 
these persons as long as they dwelt in these cities of refuge, talk about 
grace !

One other main difference that one has to realize with the Old testament law
is that THE HOLY GHOST WAS NOT GIVEN YET and each person did according to his
own heart but under the New Testament a believer must receive the Holy Ghost
which will make him a new man (Born Again). 

We usually notice what to us are big crimes such as murder and million dollar
robberies but sometimes little things count as well. How often do we indulge
in "white lies" and "lightweight sins ?" When we send a man to the gallows or
electric chair, we are only dealing with the symptoms. Let any man, even the
most evil person you can think of, let him allow Christ into his heart and
you will have the kindest, most loving person you wanna meet. If that is not
so, then why do we go around trying to make people receive Christ ?

Martin.
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Witnessing to Jews: Isa. Trail
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:27:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <Jan.5.03.48.48.1993.1385@geneva.rutgers.edu> swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>In article <Dec.24.02.01.43.1992.15494@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you write:
>|> In article <Dec.22.03.09.56.1992.12942@geneva.rutgers.edu> 
>|> REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
>|> 
>|> Yes, we must deceive lest they reject it.  Let's wrap it up in a Jewish
>|> package so they don't know what they're buying.  
>
>I see no deception here!  So it is better to speak to people in words
>they understand!  What is the problem with that!  (Remember "Christ"
>is just Anglicized Greek for "messiah", and "Jesus" is just Anglicized
>Latinized Greek for "Yeshua", so all that is being recommended here is
>to use the Jewish words rather than our goyish alterations).
>

Greetings. It's been quite a while since I've been on USENET,
but I'm back (does anyone remeber me?)

I thought I'd make my first reply to this.

One could make the case that this sort of accomodation precisely should
NOT take place. For one thing, the new testament sign of tongues
was primarily a sign of judgement on the apostate jewry of the day 
and a sign that God was abandoning the jews in their apostasy. The
verses cited prophesying of the judgement of tongues have this gist.

Tongues understood to be real foreign languages, in this instance.
Part of the fulfillment of this is that the NT was written in greek,
not hebrew, and that perivious mini-judgements of the jews (like in Daniel)
are recorded in aramaic "tongues".

One might also argue that this sort of argument would have expired
in 70 ad with the final destruction of the temple and the old testament
order, and the constitution of God's new covenant people. Thus, it's
fine to contextualize the gospel to jewa as any othr unconverted group.
But not in the ses of some "special" outreach based on a particular
redemptive place for the jews post 70ad.

Any thoughts?

paul duggan
pduggan@world.std.com
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: New Translation Gen 11-25
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:57:54 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

New Translation of Genesis 11:27-25:18
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've put a translation of the Abraham cycle from Genesis on our ftp server
if anyone would like to get a copy of it. The translation is Genesis 11:27
through to 25:18 from the Hebrew text. I've been doing quite a bit of
translating in Genesis over the past few years, but this is the first
section where I have completed the whole cycle. I claim no special
merit for this translation over any other, but I would make a few
comments on it. 

Firstly, I think it suffers from the same problem that most translations
done by an individual suffer from, and that is of variable quality. There
are some places where I think I've done a good job but mostly its
pretty ordinary. Secondly, I have found a number of modern translations
use overly simple language for my tastes. I have not tried to artificially
simplify the language in this translation. But this has meant I have had to
use some words which aren't all that common, such as alien instead of the
traditional sojourner.

There are two files on the ftp server, gen1125.ps and gen125.ps_z.
One is a postscript file, the other is compressed for those that have
Unix systems or the Unix compress utility. The larger is
about 94k. They use the Times font so should print happily on most
postscript printers. There is 17 pages. To get either file
ftp to csc.canterbury.ac.nz and login in as anonymous using your
e-mail address as a password. cd to [.crit] (this is a VMS machine)
the files are in this directory. Use binary mode if you get gen1125.ps_z.

I would welcome any comments on it, especially any errors anyone might
spot. It is still possible that I might do some tinkering with the translation
in places but this will be only very minor.

--
                                                                     ___
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 (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (and the Law)
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:07:19 GMT
Organization: The Mountains of Madness

pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp (Martin Pauley) writes:
> 5629 5639 
> 
> Let's get closer to home.  If your country/state/whatever has the death
> penalty then the authorities there have the right to execute someone
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> since they have been placed in authority by God.  Because of this, we
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     
> cannot state that the death penalty is either right or wrong or even if
> it appropriate or not.  
> 
I'm sorry, but how can you justify the underlined statement above? Do
you really believe that God influences who is voted into power?

If I've missed the point of your statement, then I apologise, but it
seems so out of place in an otherwise interesting article.

Regards

Dave

[Paul certainly talked about the government as holding office created by
God, and authorized to execute people.  See Rom 13:3-4.  I'm sure Paul
was only too aware that the Roman authorities were not Christian.  So
his statement is surely not based on the concept that God sees to it
that there are godly rulers.  --clh]
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:01:47 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Jan.5.03.23.06.1993.882@geneva.rutgers.edu> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:

>Also, it would preclude any sexual intercourse between a couple where one
>or both are infertile. Which, because of the RC rules of marriage, would
>mean that an infertile person could never marry, as they could never
>consummate the relationship.

I think you are confusing sterility with impotence here.  Per 
canon 1084, a person who is perpeptually "impotent to have intercourse"
is barred from marriage.  But sterility neither invalidates nor prohibits
marriage.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Churches in Detroit
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:35:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I will be moving with my husband to Detroit in June, and we're going to be
church hunting.  Right now we attend a Presbyterian (PCA) church in
Philadelphia.  We believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, we
believe in the salvation of Christ.  We're not socially terribly
conservative and partly because of my husband's background, we're definitely
not interested in a church that espouses legalism (i.e., the no drinking, no
movies, no dancing variety).  We'd love to find a friendly church with
great, biblically based teaching in the Detroit area.

If you're aware of any such church, I'd really appreciate hearing from you
via email:  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu.

Thanks.

  
-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Anticlericalism (was Re: CREMATION)
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:37:37 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

>[I think we've had as much discussion of cremation as makes sense, but
>I agree with Matthew's point that the discussion seems to have missed
>this distinction.  I looked again at the canon that David Cruz-Uribe
>posted.  It does seem to envision funeral services taking place at the
>point of cremation, as you say.  On the other hand, I'm not convinced
>that this clarification alone resolves the problem that SECBH
>complained about.  The complaint was more about the priest's attitude
>than anything else.  --clh]

Yes, moving away from the specific issue, I think this case
illustrates a common form of Catholic-bashing. Someone makes a
basic misunderstanding, but they automatically jump to the
wrong conclusion and use it as a story to bash the Catholic
church for ever afterwards. Perhaps the priest in this case
should have said clearly "while you can't have a funeral in the
strict sense of the term, you can have a requiem mass, in which
much the same sort of tributes can be paid", but in my
experience of this sort of argument it's quite likely that he
*did* say this, but the people weren't listening, they only
heard words 2-5.

The story ended by saying the people all became Quakers. Well
fine, but there is a lot of difference between being a Quaker
and being a Catholic. Are we really to take it that their whole
set of beliefs changed because a priest was rude to them? If I
wanted to change my religion, or any other set of beliefs,
say my political beliefs, I would do so because I had thought
through it all, not because someone had been rude to me.

Matthew Huntbach

[I agree that it seems odd to think of someone becoming a Quaker just
because a priest was rude.  However I can tell you from personal
observation that people tend to be far less understanding than usual
during stressful situations, such as serious illness or recent death.
Failure to call on someone in the hospital, failure to baptise or
conduct expected funeral rites can cause people to react in ways that
observers would consider out of all proportion to the cause.  It is
very easy to believe that someone would leave a church over such a
matter.  I'm not saying that this is a correct or sensible reaction,
but I have definitely seen reactions such as leaving a church due to
situations like the one described.  In several of the situations I
have reason to believe that the pastor hadn't actually done anything
wrong.  (I make no judgement on this specific case, of course.)
--clh]
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Dismissing others with a few pat phrases.
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:58:25 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

One of the major arguments against capital punishment is that Jesus
says we should not judge others.  Yet from counter posts and from
personal email, several opponents of the death penalty do not
hesitate to judge we proponents as being deserving of hell fire and
damnation.  They believe that WE are the source of evil on this issue.
To paraphrase, "Hmph!  May you and your kind repent of your sinful
thoughts and wickedness."

I am amazed at this hypocrisy.  Of the people I have talked to in
my life there are very few whose views I just totally dismiss as
being totally without merit.  I try to analyze other arguments and
often change my mind if they present convincing evidence.  

What I do not do is, when someone says something I don't agree with, to
just wave at them the mantras "may the Lord have mercy on your soul,"
"I pray that you repent of this evil," etc.  This is simply a way of
closing one's ears and not listening, of contemptuously dismissing
the other.  

I think it is possible to separate disagreement with philosophical
views from concern whether a person is in danger of losing eternal
life.  While I may strongly disagree with those who oppose the death
penalty, and I may become temporarily enraged when someone glibly
states that Scriptures are on their side, I never take this "personally"
and think to myself, "Gee, I hope the Lord strikes their name from the
Book of Life for their views."  Don't we all have friends who are
completely opposite from us on the political spectrum?  I do.  

It is possible to be judgmental while claiming to judge no one.  It is
possible to be smug in a lack of pride.  It is possible to be arrogant
in pacifism.  But hey, if we disagree, we can still have fellowship
and friendship.  

Yours in Christ
David Shao
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:02:19 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.

x sdittman@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Scott Dittman) writes:

 > I must disagree with the continuing notion of mankind
 > 'helping' God rid the world of sinners.

      It isn't a matter of "helping" G-d, but rather the question is over
whether G-d's commandments are to be followed.  All mankind was given the
instruction to kill murderers.  This command was given in Genesis 9 to Noah
and all of his descendants (that would include both of us).  In Matthew 5
we are told that even when heaven and earth pass away (which certainly
hasn't occured yet) that not even the smallest part of the Law will
disappear.  So we would therefore have to agree that the command to remove
murderers from the land of the living is still in effect for today.

 > In God's eyes, isn't hatred of our fellow 'raca'
 > equally anathema as even the most foul murder?

       Certainly.  But we aren't talking about calling someone RACA (empty
headed) -- and thus devaluing them below the rest of creation.  Rather the
command was that murderers needed to be removed from life

 > Doesn't God prefer his dusty Creation to the slightest touch
 > of our sinful hands, even in an attempt to be helpful?

      Sounds like you might be attempting to be "helpful" by reworking what
Scripture commands.

 > Christ has fulfilled the Law (and mankinds
 > legalistic interpretations of it)

      You are missing the Hebrew idiom spoken here.  If you attempted to
circumvent the law through legalistic searching for loopholes then you were
said to "destroy the law".  But if you kept the full intent of the Law you
were told that you had "fulfilled the Law".  So the words "think not I came
to destroy the Law, I came not to destroy but to fulfill" should be
understood in exactly the same context since that is the meaning that the
listeners at the time would have had.

 > and freed us from having to pay homage or even lip service
 > to it (e.g. the Sabbath made for man not vice versa).

      You read Matthew 5:17 and forgot to continue.  Keep reading.  He who
keeps even the smallest command of Torah and teaches others to keep it, he
shall be called Great in the Kingdom of Heaven.  But he who breaks even the
smallest commandment and tells others to do likewise, he shall be "least"
in the Kingdom of Heaven.
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: death penalty, e-mail and compassion
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:12:29 GMT

I find it very curious to receive e-mail from the Christian news group
subscriber wishing death of someone near to me (identifying e-mail address of
sender deliberately deleted)

FORWARDED MESSAGE
> Martha,
> It never ceases to amaze me why or how some people like
> yourself find it so difficult to see the rightness of
> traditional retributive justice.

> May you never find yourself the victim of the next murderer.
> But may you perhaps be touched near enough at hand for the
> experience to change your mind and come to your senses.

MY ADDITION:
Just for the record I have been closely touched by murder twice - once an
entire family.  I, the parents of the woman, the brother of the family,
all still remain adamantly opposed to the death penalty.

I also remain adamantly opposed to ever in any circumstance hoping that
murder occurs - and obviously not wishing it on or near anyone.

I also remain committed to praying for those who wish to inflict death or
see death near ... may God convert their hearts to an understanding that
allows them to reflect his forgiving, accepting, embracing love ... a love
that is far more demanding that justice untempered with mercy or love
could ever be.