HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:13:27 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Cliff Slaughterbeck (crs@stein.u.washington.edu) wrote:

>Surveys of the American people show that most Americans strongly support the
>death penalty, so it is unlikely to be overturned in the near future.  I
>have often wondered why this is the case.  I have come to the conclusion that
>people regard the death penalty as a way of getting back at the bad guys.
>It mostly makes people happy that they have a way of getting back at those
>who torment them.  Revenge.


A couple of years or so ago a student in  sociology here did a survey of
attitudes among Christians and non-Christians toward premature termination
of life. The four methods were abortion, suicide, euthanasia, and capital
punishment. The survey only covered people in the city of Christchurch
but found, in general, that non-Christians approved of abortion, suicide
and euthanisia, but were against capital punishment while the Christians
were the opposite. There is a political party called the Christian Heritage
Party here which, as part of its policies, advocates the return of the
death penalty. It is the only political party in New Zealand which does
so. Its supporters are primarily fundamentalist/conservative Christians.


                                                                     ___
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: tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Lindsay's Writings on Prophesy
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:10:28 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <Jan.11.04.09.00.1993.21639@geneva.rutgers.edu> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>
>I'm surprized our moderator missed this.  Every theology I've heard on
>this (including Hal Lindsey's) refers to a 7 year tribulation followed 
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>by a millenia of peace in which Messiah Jesus rules.

I'm surprised Bill missed this.  Most orthodox eschatologies - including
postmillennialism, amillennialism, and historic premillennialism - do not
posit a 7 year tribulation prior to the millennium.  That seems to be a
unique feature of dispensationalism.


-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: Whitten@fwva.saic.com (David Whitten)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Witnessing - Deception okay? (NOT!)
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:22:17 GMT
Organization: Science Applications Int'l, Corp. - Computer systems operation

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:
>|> >the First Covenant (never call it the old covenant & don't call Jesus
>|> >"Christ," rather Jeshua or Messiah). 
>|> 
>|> 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).
>
>-- 
>sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>  or
>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
 
I've come in late on this discussion, so I have no idea what the total
context is, but I have a very negative reaction to the statement:
 
>|> 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.  
 
This is a very BAD thing to say.  G-d is Truth, and the author of Truth.
J-sus is the Word of G-d and is also Truth.
I can NOT understand or condone the actions and words of anyone who calls 
themselves a follower of J-sus to say it is okay to trick or deceive anyone 
about Truth.
 
I have stated this forcefully because it is important.  I am trying to speak
responsibly, and yet be loving.  I just do not believe this is a good thing
to say, and any who agree with deception or most "ends justify the means"
arguments should consider the implications of what they agree to.
 
Thank you,
David (whitten@fwva.saic.com) US:(619)535-7764 [I don't speak as a company rep.]
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: praying for leaders
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:24:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <Dec.25.04.21.25.1992.17445@geneva.rutgers.edu> martin@scs.carleton.ca (martin chidyausiku) writes:
>I have noticed that there is a general misconception held within the
>christian communy that being right-wing or to be sympathetic with such views
>is a sign of being a strong christian.

This message shows signs of generalising from the USA to the
rest of the world, and from certain sorts of Christians to
Christians in general. It would be better to say "widely-held"
then "general" misconception. It is quite common, at least here in
the UK, for people to go the opposite way and say "Christianity
is basically Communism", based on some of Jesus' sayings. Many
social reformers, and people on the political left have been
heavily influenced by Christianity.

It does appear that there are certain sorts, mainly extreme
evangelicals in the USA, who seem to combine right-wing politics
with their variety of Christianity, and I am saddened that I often
read articles in this newsgroup which seem to be based on the
misconception that these people are in some way the mainstream
of Christianity. In Europe and Latin America you will find some
conservative Catholic groups with links to the political right.

But I don't think you can even say that Christians who are
theologically conservative (whether Protestant or Catholic) are
automatically Conservative in their politics. There are plenty
of exceptions to this "rule". Oddly enough, I find it harder to
think of exceptions to the rule that Christians who are liberal
theologically are Liberal in politics ("Liberal" used in the
USA sense, closer to "social democratic" in the language of
European politics).

Matthew Huntbach
From: news@divsun.unige.ch
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:23:21 GMT

>Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
>Path: ugsc2a!fragnier
>Lines: 36
>Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland

==============================================================================
>>
>> Subject: Do We Need To Pray????
>>
>> I'd like some discussions on this....
>>
>> If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to
>> us automatically without praying for it??????
>>
>> I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....??
>>
>> Any comments, agree,disagree,don't know,maybe ??????? - jrl
>>
==============================================================================

Dear jrl,

God knows what we need, that's right ! He knows too what we want before we ask
Him... Also, why to pray ?...

If we think like that, it's seems we don't need to pray anytime. But God is
not a machine who give us automatically what we need (or what we want). God
is alive ! He can decide if He want to give us something or not !

But God is our Father, and like a human father is happy when his children speak
with him, God is happy when we speak to Him. He loves us like the best Father
we can dream, and He want give us the best things. He knows what we want (or
need), but He's waiting that we ask Him about anything, because He want have a
relation with us.

A christian prays not to ask God for something like in a shop, but pray for
speaking with his Lord, for thanking God, etc... A christian prays for having
a relation with his Father !

God bless you.
                    *** Manuel ***
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Virgin Births (Was Re: Preaching to the Moderns)
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:40:54 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

Just an aside to this discussion:  medically speaking, virgin births occur a
couple of times a year in any sufficiently large population (e.g., New York
City).  If someone would like to get into anatomical explanations please
email me; it's not appropriate for this venue.  What is miraculous about the
Virgin Mary and Jesus is not that she was medically a virgin when she gave
birth, but that she conceived Jesus when she assented to God's plan as told
her by the Archangel Gabriel, and without ever having had sexual intercourse
with any man until (at least) after Jesus's birth.  It seems to me that a
person having intellectual problems with Mary's virginity either doesn't know
that virgin births per se are not impossible or has doubts concerning God's
ability to mess with X and Y chromosomes and split an egg, especially if He's
trying to make a point.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|		"Life is uncertain.  Eat dessert first."  - Anon. 	   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ?'s
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:49:59 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

In article <Jan.7.01.27.14.1993.6107@geneva.rutgers.edu>, shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
|> Some questions:
|> 
|> 1) The concept of eternity; I mean God has *always* existed. I find it
|>    hard to imagine there being no beginning.

There is a beginning to everything that is finite; only the infinite
God has no beginning or end.  Because we are finite (created) beings,
we cannot truly conprehend the infinite, only point towards it

|> 2) If God is unchanging, why did he seem so much more harsh in the OT?

HE certainly did didn't He?  It is not God that changed but God works
through history and through humans.  God was represented in the OT as
He revealed himself in the way the people could most understand.  Sort
of the kindergarten of religion followed by grade school.

|> 3) On the cross, Jesus asked why God had forsaken him. Didn't he have
|>    total faith?

Jesus was totally human as well as totally divine.  If he had not
expereinced human limitations and doubts, he would not have been truly
human and his life would not be a realistic model for us

|> 4) At this time there *is* no #4. :^)

Astounding - I usually have more questions than answers
From: alyosha@stein.u.washington.edu (Nina Butorac)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:57:44 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

It continually amazes me that people with Christian balues and
sensibilities favor and support the death penalty.  While this is 
astonishing enough, I am literally floored by Christians who are
not satisfied with condemning a person to death, but wish also his
ultimate condemnation to hell in the process.

Yes, Dod did some horrible, dispicable deeds.  Who would argue against
that?  But must we mirror his acts by hanging him?  Capital Punishment
is a dispicable deed, too, and I for one do not wish to give that
kind of power - the supreme and divine power of life and death - over
to the State.

It used to be that punishment was a religious practice, used for the
purging of sins and toward the hope of redemption for the criminal.
Now, even against everything Christ taught us, it is an act of pure
vengeance.  Capital Punishment is the supreme vengeance, and was only
accepted by the Church because it was often instrumental in the conversion
of the criminal.  The intention of Capital Punishment was to win a soul
over to God, and to SAVE the criminal.  But that is all gone now.  While
still accepted by the Church, Capital Punishment is more often discouraged
by Rome and some other religious churches/sects.  

Still, attitudes don't change; and I hear so often from "Christians" the
desire to not only kill a person, but to obliterate his existence: and a
desire to see him banned from the presence of God.  This seating of one's
self on the throne of God, this ultimate crime of hubris, this supreme
attitude of condemnation should never even enter into the Christain's mind.
It is a harsh and deadly sin, juxtaposing Christ's most somber teachings.

When we allow society the power to destroy life, we delegate to society
an extreme and absolute value: an absolute value that pretends to absolute
power.  But society does not, in truth, possess this value, because it
is not perfect and it is not just.  The individual life of any man, woman
or child is our absolute value.  When we place society above this value,
we delegate to this imperfect structure the judicial power of God.  And
this must never happen.

My hope is that Wesley Allen Dodd did find salvation.  My hope is that,
even at this moment, there is much rejoicing in heaven.  My hope, albeit
a remarkable one, is that the three little boys he tortured and killed
might embrace him in heaven.  This final hope is really beyond my human
comprehension, but then so is the hope of heaven, and the hope and 
trust I place in God's forgiveness and love.  Without Christ, this final
hope would be impossible for me.  

alyosha@u.washington.edu
From: martin@scs.carleton.ca (martin chidyausiku)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:58:44 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Hi,

I would like to comment on this controvercial subject. 
I agree, that commiters of grevious crimes should not be let off the hook  or
go scott free. Sometimes the law enforcement apparatus that we have put into
place in every nation manages to apprehend offenders and their very existence
does deter a small amount of crime. In the case of murder, I believe that
everyone guilty of murder should be put behind the bars with no parole for the
rest of his natural life.Now a question: how do we deal with someone whose
actions may take another life ? Should not the law be as harsh or at least put
such people behind the bars for long terms with hard labour ? (Agree ?) Ok,
how about drunk drivers ? Isn't it obvious that drunk driving is wrong ? How
should we deal with a drunk driver who kills a little girl or boy ? We could
begin to introduce double standards at this stage but I say a murder is a
murder. I don't subscribe to taking another person's life, even that of a
murderer. God Himself did not take Cain's life even though Cain would have
been sentenced to death in all states and countries that have the death
sentence.
Having said that, there are thousands that are on death roll in prisons around
the world (for commiting murder) although evidence later produced has shown
that the conviction stand on shaky ground. How should we deal with those.
There are true vicious murderers who have gone on to repent and believe in
God, should not every criminal be granted this chance ?

Martin.
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There is no god
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:34:09 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>I have heard testimony about the transforming power of
>Christianity (various forms).
>I have heard testimony about the transforming
>power of rejecting Christianity.  I have heard testimony
>of the transforming power of Judaism, of Islam, of Zen,
>of Wicca, of Krishna, and other faiths.  I have the
>evidence of my own spiritual sojurns.

I guess there is a basic thing to decide: is religion there to allow God
to love you, or is it there to allow you to love God?  While testimonies
of transformations can be impressive (and I don't want to deny them: I
have had a friend come back to life in response to prayer after a drug
overdose) I think the best reason for religion is not selfish (to get
power or peace) but to worship God and unite yourself to God. It is to allow
me to love God: God already loves me, I can't do anything to allow it more.

In Christianity, the fundamental impetus is not to gain control of your
life, or get power over others, or even to live right (however nice these
things might be), but to be one with Jesus, to participate in his
divinity, and to unite ourselves with him on the Cross (in doing so he
will determine the fruit we bear, but that's up to him). 

Ultimately, it is Jesus on the Cross. Does Islam or Judaism reveal a God
as tender and self-giving? Does Wicca reveal such indiscriminate fairness,
justice and mercy? Does Zen reveal godliness existing in complete and
passionate involvement in the world, like Jesus' incarnation does? 

I recommend you contemplate Jesus dying on the Cross: Christian
contemplation is not results-oriented, it doesn't attempt to achieve any
state, it is just mentally putting yourself there at the same time with
Jesus, and letting the divine analogy of his presence and death speak. In
this way you come into a stronger and more real contact with God than any
theology or mental state can provide: God (as Jesus) actually walked the
Earth, and in contemplating episodes in the divine drama of the Gospels you
are actually putting yourself in the presence of God.  If you go to a
nice quiet church with a crucifix or artwork, that can be helpful. Many
Catholic churches have "stations of the cross" around the walls: 14
episodes from Jesus' trial to crucifiction as paintings or relief sculpture.

(Sorry if this is too preachy)

-ricko
From: mayne@ds2.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Cremation
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:27:26 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@ds2.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Dec.20.17.16.40.1992.22005@farside.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org writes:
>
>I personally don't like cremation, for all the above reasons, but especially 
>for the last. A funeral in a crematorium or undertaker's chapel is always 
>thoroughly depressing. The building is used for nothing else, and it somehow 
>separates death from life. If I had to be cremated, I would rather it were 
>done in the Hindu or Viking way - on a whopping great pyre. 

Cremation does not preclude holding a funeral service in a church or any
other suitable place not exclusively associated with death, if that bothers
you. Cemetaries are also used for nothing but burying people. So I don't see
why you would prefer burial for the reason you gave.

It used to be the custom in some places to hold wakes at home, which seems
more appropriate to me, too. Perhaps the decline of home parlors had
something to do with the rise of special "funeral parlors".

>One way the friends and relatives of a dead person can deal with grief is 
>through physical activity, and filling in the grave is a way of giving the 
>dead person a good send-off. But pressing a button to make a coffin disappear 
>behind curtains in the Enlightenment-style crematorium is banal and bathetic.

The only burial service I have witnessed where the actual burial was not
done by cemetary workers after all the mourners had left was my father's.
My brother and I and our wives asked wanted to stay around after everyone
left, as usual, before the actual burial. The workers handling it had no
objections but it was clear that this was an unusual practice and they
were concerned not to offend or bother people by starting the burial
before everyone had left. So the usual modern practice at least as I
have seen it is as least as banal and pathetic as you feel cremations
are.

A positive aspect of cremation is that disposal of the remains (ashes)
can itself be turned into a simple and moving ritual under the control
of family and friends without professionals or authorities involved.
We dispersed the ashes of my mother in law privately by scattering them
into the water at a beach she loved. This kind of thing can be a nice
concrete way of recognizing that the person is gone. But maybe that
final act is at the root of some Christian objections to the practice.

Bill Mayne
From: jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Death Penalty
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:13:41 GMT
Reply-To: jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

With all the discussion concerning the recent execution of a convicted
murderer, I feel compelled to comment on some remarks posted on the
appropriateness of Man's use of the death penalty.

First, it is often said by well-meaning people that we should not "judge"
our fellow man.  I agree, because the Biblical "judgement" concerns
Heaven and Hell, rather than whether a person has broken the Law.  God
says that we are responsible for holding each other accountable for
our actions.

Second, while the Law says we shall not murder, it does not prohibit
all killing (i.e. self-defense, executions).  God says that anyone who
murders shall lose his own life.  We are expected to exact such punishments
on those who are guilty.  To attempt to dodge this distasteful task
with claims that it's wrong to take a life, to judge, is actually an
avoidance of our own responsibility to follow God's commands.

Finally, while statistics may show that capital punishment isn't a deterent,
Man is such an imperfect being that even the prospect of Hell isn't
keeping us from sinning.  However, death is the required consequence
for murder.
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Apostle Thomas in India?
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:43:01 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <Jan.8.00.56.46.1993.2667@farside.rutgers.edu> aslt@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>Someone told me that Thomas the apostle (as in Doubting Thomas) ended up
>in India as part of his missionary effort, but couldn't point me to any
>evidence.  Anyone know anything about this?
>
>Thanks in advance.  E-mail replies welcome.
>
>Lee

According to both apocryphal accounts and sacred tradition, Thomas did indeed
make a missionary journey to India, where he was martyred.  I don't have the
names of the apocryphal documents in front of me right now, but I remember
reading about this in a commentary on Acts.  Although this isn't exactly
"hard" evidence, as apocryphal accounts are always suspect, it has been the
teaching of the Church that this is where Thomas wound up.
From: ucsd!gatech!ee!news@uunet.uu.net (Lonnie D Harvel)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Mary an Ethiopian?
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:12:34 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP

From where did the tradition that Mary, the mother of Christ, was
an Ehiopian, come?

Thanks...

-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu