HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about St. Laurence
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:37:28 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <Aug.18.02.27.08.1992.27353@aramis.rutgers.edu> SEANNA@bnr.ca (S.M.) writes:
>My name is Trevyn Watson and I am 7 1/2.  I was wondering if there was a 
>saint named St. Laurence.  Was the river named after a real person?  And if 
>it was, why did they pick that name?

Hi, Trevyn--
Here's a little information about St. Lawrence, drawn from "The Penguin
Dictionary of Saints":

St. Lawrence was one of the seven deacons of the church in Rome, and was
martyred there in the year 258.  Most of what we know about Lawrence comes from
the last few days of his life.  

At the time, the civil authorities in Rome were persecuting the Church, and 
they had even killed Pope Sixtus, the leader of the Christians.  Next they
went after Lawrence.  Since Lawrence's job as a deacon was to receive
donations from the believers and spend them caring for the poor, the city
prefect demanded that Lawrence hand over the church's valuables.  The deacon
did just that, but in an unexpected way: he brought together the poor and 
the sick and presented them to the prefect, saying, "Here is the church's 
treasure!"

According to the story handed down in the church, the authorities put
Lawrence to death by roasting him on an iron grid.  He faced death not
only bravely, but even cheerfully: at one point he said, "Turn me over;
I'm done on this side."  
;-)

That's all I have about St. Lawrence.  I hope it helps to answer your 
questions.  Maybe somebody else can answer your specific questions about 
the river.

Bye for now...
--Richard Chonak, Cambridge, Massachusetts
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (8-17)
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:29:35 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Monday, August 17:

     The God that made the world and all the things in it, being, as 
this One is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade 
temples.  <Acts 17: 24>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: defining fundamentalism - query
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:40:32 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


     The term "fundamentalist" is constantly heard in the news
media.  I am aware of the origin of the term, but what/who is a
fundamentalist at the present time?  Is Gerard van Groningen
(Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament, Baker Book House: Grand
Rapids, 1990) a fundamentalist?  Is Gerald L. Schroeder (Genesis
and the Big Bang, Bantam 1990) a fundamentalist?  (He's Jewish, but
I hear the term applied to Jews, Moslems and Catholics as well as
to Protestant Christians.)  Is there a useful distinction between
fundamentalism and orthodoxy?

Here's a mini-apologetic for fundamentalists, who/whatever they
are:

Q. Do you accept a literal reading of the Bible?--that is, do you
ignore context and circumstance?  (If so, you are naive.)

A. Do you accept a literal reading of modern scholarship?--that is,
do you ignore context and circumstance?  (If so, naive though I may
be, I am not so naive as you.)

	- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>

[Strictly speaking, I suspect there are almost no fundamentalists
today.  Fundamentalism was a specific movement, defending what they
regarded as orthodoxy against liberal attack, by defending a specific
list of "fundamental" beliefs.  Probably most conservatives would
agree with the list, but the specific movement is only one of the
streams leading into conservative thought.

Generally I think the term is used fairly loosely at the moment, to
refer to a combination of inerrancy and emphasis on the Bible as a
source of law.  I normally try to use more specific terms, such as
inerrantist, or simply "conservative" if I'm being general.  The
problem with the term orthodox is that it simply means "correct".  So
everyone thinks they are orthodox.

--clh]
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: LXX      the SEPTUAGINT (in english)
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:33:01 GMT


 * Moved from SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN (Usenet Xtian) by Steve Hayes

On <17 Aug 1992 20:54> 751kaiser@gw.wmich.edu (5:7104/2) said to All :

 we>I'm looking for an English version of the Septuagint or 
 we>otherwise known as...
 we>
 we>LXX

I have copy of "The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha with 
an English translation with various readings and critical notes" published by 
Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, and Harper & Brothers, New York. It is 
undated.
--  
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: pike@zapix.vbo.dec.com (Jesus comes to my rescue !)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Prove it to me! New question!
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:37:38 GMT
Reply-To: pike@zapix.vbo.dec.com (Jesus comes to my rescue !)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

> studman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Daniel Tseng) writes:
>
> Now, let's say that okay, I agree that Jesus died for all of our sins
> including mine, I believe that what you're telling me is the truth.
> Now what?

Wow, ok, right, let's say that you have accepted Jesus' forgiveness for
your sin and have invited Him into your life as Lord and Saviour.
Now let's get down to the nitty gritty...

    "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
     and with all thy mind."  Matthew 22:37


Some practical ways of having a growing relationship with the
loving Creator are:

    1) Spend some time each day praying (talking and listening to God)
       and reading the Bible (His love letters).  PHIL 4:6; 2 TIM 3:14-17

    2) Put into practice what you discover in the Bible. 
       JOHN 14:21; LUKE 6:46-49

    3) Let the Holy Spirit guide your everyday life and your testimony.
       LUKE 11:13; EPH 5:18 and 3:14-19; GAL 5:16,17; ACT 1:8

    4) Count on God for every detail of your life. 1 PETER 5:7

    5) Witness for Jesus Christ with your life and your words.
       2 COR 5:20; ROM 10:14; MARK 5:19

    6) Gather together with other Christians for encouragement and
       training. ACT 2:42; HEB 10:24,25; EPH 4:12-14; 1 COR 12:27
       (Attend a church where Christ is glorified and His Word is taught).


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles Lowell Pike    \ Love God, hate evil, Love Jesus, hate sin |
| Digital Equipment Corp. \ charles pike @vbo             visa::pike |
| Sophia Antipolis, France \ "pike%zapix.vbo.dec.com"@decwrl.dec.com |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Stewardship Issues
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:18:33 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

I'd like to correspond with anybody who's grappled with the time-honored
subject of promoting stewardship in the congregation.  As a new member 
on a board that is seeking better approaches to increasing stewardship
awareness, we've got ideas, but voices of experience and differing viewpoints
are always helpful.  Incidentally, I don't think this is the kind of 
general interest thread our moderator ought to have to put up with;
I'd say the e-mail-and-post-summary route would be better.

I'll just throw out there that in my opinion, people support ministries
with their time, material, and money when a ministry communicates two
things effectively:

1) The exciting things that are happening in their ministry _in specific
terms._   "Maria and her two boys came in last night and had no place to 
stay...we helped locate employment...provided counseling...etc."  instead
of "we provide services to the indigent population."

2) The _specific_ ways an individual can participate in this excitement,
    with time or donations or money.  So instead of saying "the Mission
   has a budget of $1.2 million for 1992, and we're at $350,000 for July
   so we're running behind projections by xxxx..."  we see instead
   "to provide for Maria and her two boys for one night in our Family
    Shelter costs $34.50."   "The Heart Line requires at least 10
   volunteers to keep the phones operational during the week."  "
   "Donations of gloves, toiletries and bedding are especially needed
    at this time."

The second item is mildly controversial, as it has been suggested to me that
this promotes "giving to the budget" instead of giving out of pure,
undiluted biblical gratitude for God's grace, but I see it as providing
a chance to see how individuals can make a difference.  Anyway, any
comments or email would be useful.  Thanks.

--
===============================================================================
paul marxhausen                              \/               grace 
university of nebraska - lincoln             /\              happens           
===============================================================================
From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Knuth's book
Date: 17 Aug 92 06:19:45 GMT
Reply-To: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

Anyone know if the illustrations from the book are available on
T-shirts or sweatshirts?
				Tim
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
The proper response to detecting a bug isn't to fix the bug - it's to make 
sure you'll never have to worry about that bug again.  --- Richard Hamming
From: rp@sequent.com (Roger Perrin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: What is essential ?
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:46:41 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

Pete, thanks for taking the time to respond to my question:

>So, what *is* essential Christian belief about God and salvation ?

Is this a reasonable summary of what you said ?

. that there is a God

. there is only one God

. God is the rightful Lord of this planet

. that He created all matter, time, space and so on

. that Jesus of Nazareth was someone who transcended humanity and
  was nothing less than divinity in the flesh

. Jesus who was God incarnate was the only one of His kind;
  there were/are no others to match this person: He is Lord
  
. Jesus was God become human flesh.( John 8:58) "Before Abraham was, I am."

These are some pretty clear points about your belief in God. Anything
to add about the salvation part ?

I hope this isn't too terse.  Its getting late and I wanted to follow up
on your post.

Thanks, 
Roger Perrin.

(re your ps: I'll answer your questions about my background by mail. It 
may take me til the weekend.)
-rp-
-- 

[Much of the discussion has been on how to define "Christian".  It's
probably worth keeping this separate from the question you are
addressing here, which is essential beliefs.  You've included the
Incarnation.  I think some people accept as Christian a person who
acknowledges Christ as the only Lord, even if that person rejects
theological ideas such as the Incarnation.  Traditionally groups like
the Arians were considered heretics, but Christian heretics.  A fairly
common standard for essential Christian beliefs is the Apostle's Creed
or possibly the Nicene Creed.  (The Nicene Creed tends to involve
slightly more "technical" theological definitions.)  --clh]
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist? And proof of existence!
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:18:18 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <Aug.18.01.35.52.1992.25721@aramis.rutgers.edu>  
e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
> 
>       The argument that everything must have a creator is an old one.  
>But even if we like its philosophy, so what?  As far as I can see, 
>nothing at all follows from that argument.  It says nothing about the 
>creator other than the creation. No Bible, no Christianity, no other 
>religion is logically demanded by it.

You're right, pretty much.  I read St. Thomas for the first time the other  
day and was amazed at what he "proved" (using abstract logic I don't quite  
grasp) about God from nature.  It certainly did not extend to the  
particulars of Christianity but it did include six or so attributes (He is  
uncreated, Good, Perfect--I don't remember the rest.)  Anyway, it does  
look like some things follow.

Theologians call this "general revelation," the things about God that can  
be known from nature.  The only way to know more is for Him to tell us,  
which is called "special revelation."  Jesus claimed that he himself was  
the ultimate special revelation in John 10:30 I and my Father are one.  
14:7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

Also, in support of your point, Luke 10:22: ... and no man knoweth who the  
Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom  
the Son will reveal him.


-------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                            rob@ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood St.                   Your basic human being
Lexington, MA  02173            is not such a hot item.
617/981-2575                      --Ben Stein's sister
From: silver@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (silver)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Analogy reply...
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:23:21 GMT
Organization: The Tally Ho

some weeks ago someone posted the following analogy to alt.atheism for why 
religions tend to try to win converts constantly, and I just wanted to correct
it to more reasonably reflect reality. The cross-posting is designed to get
this article read (if at all possible) by the kind of people who post to
alt.atheism trying to convert us and then ignore our replies (by never
actually reading alt.atheism).

the relgionists analogy:
  you see a blind person walking towards a cliff, so you try to stop him.
  you are not dissuaded by his claims that there are no cliffs in his world so
  he couldn't possibly be in danger.

simple enough, even makes sense... but it's not like reality, not as much as
my revised analogy:
  you are a blind person and you bump into another blind person walking in
  the direction you're pretty sure leads to a cliff (but you bump into him 
  because you're walking so close to where you think the cliff is, anyway).
  you try to stop him, explaining there is a cliff there. he explains that he
  uses a cane to test for cliffs, but you explain that this is a special cliff
  that you won't feel with a cane but will fall off, anyway. he asks how you
  know it's there - do you see it? you answer that you're blind, too, you just
  have it on word from several other blind people who have it on word from 
  several other blind people and so on for a few generations that someone who
  claimed to have sight said there was a cliff out there a long time ago. 
  he says that several other people have indicated similar cliffs in other 
  directions, but you explain that those people are wrong, they listened only
  to fellow blind people who lied. he suggests maybe you were lied to, as well,
  and offers you a cane, but you refuse saying that it's better to trust the 
  word you heard (while ignoring the word everyone else heard), which tells you
  no cane can find the cliff before you walk off it.
  after explaining for the second time that there are cliffs that no tapping of
  the cane can find, all you hear is the receding 'tap tap tap' indicating that
  your audience has departed...

as soon as the religionists get a grip on the second analogy, life will be a
lot easier on the rest of us.

--silver--                                     | "...Sloooow the plot down,
internet: silver@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu            | we'll scuttle the story
realitynet: silver Harloe@(512)/445-6087       | and run her aground..."
In the Village: Number Eight -- Be Seeing You! |        --MST3k/Mighty Jack
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Please Prove it to me!
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:28:13 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

From: studman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Daniel Tseng)
> Currently I am as you might say a "non-believer", and I've been trying
> to accept the basic premise of Christianity, the belief that Jesus was our
> Savior and gave his life for our sins.  Now that's great and everything, b
> it's very difficult for me to accept something without some sort of proof 
> this.  Don't bring the bible into it, that's not a valid argument for me
> either, I've read alot of the bible, Matthew, etc... and know about Jesus'
> birth and his travels and the stories in Israel.  How do I and you know th
> it's not all made up by some lunatic way back when.

God tells us plainly in Rom. 1 why people have problems with the
Christian faith: they are rebels against his law order. The problems
they have with the faith are not intellectual; they are ethical. The
sort of proof the unconverted seek will never be sufficient to convince
their minds apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit. All
unconverted men know instinctively that God exists, that he is
powerful, that they have violated his law, and that they deserve
punishment. Because of their sin, however, they suppress this truth that
cries out within them at every opportunity. They must recognize that
any life or faith apart from God is not merely wrong, but rebellious
and self-frustrating. It is only on the basis of the Christian faith
that human life is intelligible. For this reason un-  and
anti-Christian philosophies must borrow from Christianity to make their
tenets at least bearable. The logical conclusion of all anti-Christian
philosophies is the utter destruction of humanity; for this reason they
cannot afford to be logical.

Andrew Sandlin posting from the account of
dan  of dlh Performance Marketing  POBox 1419  Mentor Ohio 44061
         NCoast.org!dlhpfm!dlh or ab.com!dlhpfm.uucp!dlh
From: hendricks@cdrom.enet.dec.com (Holly Hendricks)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Wheaton College, IL - gay and lesbian alumni group forming
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:09:56 GMT
Reply-To: hendricks@cdrom.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp.

[Please ignore this posting if it does not pertain to you or someone 
close to you.  This is simply an announcement, not a discussion.]

A group of former Wheaton College (Illinois, not Mass.) students is 
forming a lesbian and gay alumni group.  There are already over 100 
people who attended Wheaton between 1950 and 1992 who have asked to 
be put on the list.

Some gay and lesbian Wheaton alumni are strongly identified as 
Christians; others are not.  All gay and lesbian Wheaton alumni 
are welcome.

If you attended Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL and consider yourself
to be gay or lesbian, and would like more information, please contact 
Paul Phillips at 369 Montezuma #209, Santa Fe, NM 87501 for more 
information.  Confidentiality available upon request.
[EOB (That's all!)]
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Problem of pain - summary & response
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:52:10 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Problem of pain - response & summary

I appreciated the many responses to my query regarding the problem of
pain.  Peter Kreeft's book was mentioned by two people (_Making sense
of suffering_); I shall have a look at it.  Some of the themes I
gleaned from the discussion were:

	- free will brings about suffering
	- suffering is a call to closeness & communion
	- suffering is a teacher
	- suffering is caused by disobedience

I found David Shao's political remarks especially interesting and am
going to think about them.  This looks like a very OT orientation and
reminds me of what I think one used to call the social gospel.  I am
rather distanced from Liberal politics but it has always seemed to me
that not only the prophets but Jesus' life is just incompatible with
modern Western societies.  If I have, someone else lacks.

It was interesting that no one mentioned the Book of Job.

My query did not come from personal suffering; I had in mind the
age-old question of how an all-powerful God who is also entirely good
could have brought into existence the suffering of innocents.  Even
animals.  Many of you seem to respond to suffering by building on your
already-existing faith.  I am troubled by the problem of pain as an
apparently very powerful argument against God's existence, at least as
an all-powerful Being.

I think this argument is more of a problem than it used to be, not so
much because there is more suffering in the world - there may be less
- but because I can see science and philosophy developing once again into 
"hand-maidens" to theology in the next century (if the world lasts).
On most counts, it is far easier to believe in God than it was a
century ago.  But this "argument from pain" remains.

	- Ken Miner
From: stevep@Cadence.COM (Steve Peterson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Wintnesses
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:21:26 GMT
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.

In article <Aug.17.03.36.23.1992.18168@athos.rutgers.edu> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:

>I would like some form of history of the JW's written by someone
>mainstream and unimpeachable. Are there any suggestions? Also I would
>like a lsit of the twistings of truth in their rather unusual
>translation of the bible. 
>
>Thank you in advance

For those who consider themselves as being open minded, wanting to hear both
sides of the story, I would be glad to send a 32 page brochure covering the
history of Jehovah's Witnesses and the scriptural basis for their beliefs. 
The brochure is written by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the
publishers of all JW literature.

If you are interested in receiving a copy, please provide your mailing address.
As with all JW literature, there is no charge.

Best regards,

Steve Peterson
stevep@cadence.com