HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: memco@cns.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Questions that trouble me
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:49:00 GMT
Reply-To: memco@cns.nyu.edu
Organization: New York University


	While these questions will probably seem provacative to
many here, they are being honestly asked by a non-Christian.
I don't know the Christian viewpoint on these issues and am
trying to get honest answers.

1)	My understanding of Jewish tradition concerning the
sacrifice of animals in the Temple is that their blood
(along with the sincere repentance of the offender) washed
away the sin. Humans were strictly forbidden as sacrificial
objects. Christians, along with conveying deityship on Jesus,
also describe him as fully human. If, as you say, he was killed
to "wash away the sins of mankind", wouldn't this fall into
the category of human sacrifice? If not, why not?

2)	There has also been some suggestion that Jesus went
willingly (to some extent) to the cross specifically to
"wash away" said sins. Wouldn't this be considered suicide?

3)	Finally, it is my understanding that
when Christians consume the host and drink the
sacremental wine, at the moment they enter the mouth, they are
supposedly transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus
respectively. Considering the human aspect of his body,
why shouldn't this be considered as cannibalism?

I'm not trying for a flame war. Various friends and I keep
returning to these interpretations of the situations discussed,
and I was honestly curious as to the Christian theological
interpretation.

My apologies to any offended but I figured this would be the
group to ask.

---
memco@wotan.cns.nyu.edu

[I guess you'd say that Jesus is a human sacrifice.  Note that the ban
on human sacrifice applies to sacrificing them on an altar.  There are
still plenty of circumstances where people will do something to
protect others that results in their death.  In late Judaism some of
these sacrifices were considered to have great power.  A study I read
of Paul's theology claims that his concept of Jesus' sacrifice had
some grounding in Jewish attitudes towards the power of sacrifice.

The question of willingness depends upon what you mean by willingness.
Christians generally consider it undesirable for people to seek death
for its own sake.  However to be willing to die in the course of
protecting someone else is certainly acceptable.  Is this willing?
Yes -- you knowingly die in a situation where you could have avoided
it.  No, in the sense that dying wasn't your ultimate goal.  If
someone goes into a burning building to rescue someone else, they may
know they are going to die, or more commonly that they run a risk of
doing so.  We don't call that suicide.  I would say that the same is
true of Jesus.  He knew that if he continued preaching his message,
healing, etc, that eventually the authorities would kill him.  That's
a different thing from saying that he specifically set out to die.

Point 3 applies specifically to Catholics only, so I won't comment in
detail.  However I would guess if you ask why cannibalism is wrong,
the reasons probably would turn out not to apply to that particular
situation.

--clh]
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: MEN > WOMEN  "...because the Bible tells me so..."
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:36:56 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

The moderator says:
|
|There was an interesting discussion at some point in the past
|(possibly in Christia rather than here), where someone asked "OK,
|suppose we agree that the husband is the head of the marriage.  Just
|what in practical terms does that *mean* to your marriage?"  I thought
|the responses where interesting.  No one, even among the conservative
|Christians, seems to see it in terms of men controlling.  Rather, it
|seems like almost a symbolic role -- the husband represents the family
|in some circumstances, and may serve a tie-breaker role.

Unfortunately, I do know someone who sees it as a controlling roll.
To my sorrow it is one of my uncles.  And the pain he is causing my aunt
is hard to bear.

It it is my understanding that he has gotten this interpretation from some
"ultra-conservative" christian sect, in particular from the book(s) published
by the leader of this offshoot of Christianity.  So it is not even entirely
isolated, there are enough of these people to support the publication of a
book.

It is very difficult to discuss the matter with him, because he is such a
fervent follower of this leader, and we do not really want to totally alienate
him from the family by pushing the matter.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: All curses overturned at Calvary? (was Re: Men's/Women's Roles in
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:45:58 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <Oct.10.03.01.56.1992.16893@geneva.rutgers.edu> jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:
>>(I asserted that all curses were overturned at Calvary)
>
>Actually, I don't think all curses were overturned at Calvary, or at
>least not completely so far as my present life is concerned. Otherwise,
>why do I still sin, and why will I one day die?

I think I expressed myself poorly.  Although I believe that all curses
were overturned at Calvary, we are obviously still living with the
effects.  So although all are sins are forgiven, and we have been set
free from its power, we none the less continue to sin.  In the same
way, I believe, gender relationships were imbalanced by the fall.
Although we should strive to regain the pre-Fall balance, we obviously
will not do so fully, this side of Heaven.

And isn't the clear teaching of the Bible that all who believe in him
will not die, but have eternal life ?
>
>I think it is patently obvious that the curse of Genesis still holds. The
>wife of a friend of mine recently gave birth, and my friend told me it
>was very difficult for him to see her in such pain. The only way around
>it is to use drugs, and I don't think that is really much of a
>redemption. 

Yes, but would you argue against the use of drugs on the grounds that
childbirth is meant to be painful ?  That arguement was certainly made
when anaesthesia started becoming available, and indeed a missionary
connection of my husband's church said that when she began practicing
as a pharmacist in Zaire, there was a lot of resistance to the
prescrition of pain-reducing drugs to labouring women, for the same
reason.  To me, to be logically consistent, if you are going to argue
for male-headship on the basis of Genesis 3, then you also need to
accept the above state of affairs, and probably reject modern methods
of agriculture.

Hope this is still interesting

Alison
From: dblackbu@alleg.edu (Dave Blackburn)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The word "my" (was: Re: 'my personal savior')
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:01:29 GMT
Organization: Allegheny College

In article <Oct.3.02.18.58.1992.3484@geneva.rutgers.edu>  
Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:

|Good God!  - Exactly!
|My God!    - Presumptuous!

In C. S. Lewis' _The_Screwtape_Letters_, quoting from memory here, sorry:
"Soon we shall have them [people] meaning exactly the same thing when they  
say, 'my boots', 'my dog', 'my wife', 'my country', and 'my God'."
   - Screwtape
I think this has a lot to say to semantic discussions. 

* Dave Blackburn  dblackbu@alleg.edu  flames to self@home.dev.null *          
* Chemistry, Macs, Hypercard, cats,  <>< religion, & the Dead      *
* (Anyone else who held these opinions would be as crazy as I am.) *
*   "Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own"   *
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Oregon hate has come full circle
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:18:26 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Oct.8.01.07.29.1992.12640@geneva.rutgers.edu>, entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:
>So lets say you get your way and destroy us (homosexuals), will you be prepared
>to pay the consequences of making a pact with the devil to do it?

Be careful when you say things like this.  The only people to whom you should
refer as "you" is the OCA.  Stereotypes of all types are dangerous and
unproductive (as I'm sure you know first hand).  Not all Christians feel the
same way the OCA does, as our moderator says.  I am a born-again Christian and
I am ASHAMED of what these people are trying to do.  I know many others who
feel the same way.

My question to you (and a challenge to the other Christians reading this) is
what can we do here in Boston or around the country to stop the OCA?

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christianity and economics
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:22:52 GMT
Organization: LA&W RR

>Mr. Burkett's concepts have to apply to folks who are struggling and live from
>paycheck to paycheck.  It is the rare person who has enough financial responsi-
>bility to take care of bills each month in full or without pushing the limits
>on financial margin for emergencies.  And Mr. Burkett cannot address an audienceunless he goes for the lowest common denominator.  My finances would be strainedif I were to have two car payments AND use credit cards.  But we drive two old
>cars, pay our credit cards in full each month and hope that we don't have any
>extra expenses.  Getting rid of credit cards would force me to stop getting
>interest on the cash I'm not spending immediately, would keep me from travelling
>on business, and would wipe out reserving rental cars, flights, and motel rooms.And I guess I would be living in a tent because I couldn't have a mortgage...


>From what I've heard, Larry Burket does not say one cannot have any
credit cards.  He just says that if you use them, you should only buy
things which you would buy anyway with your existing cash.  Use them as
a conveinience, not as a source of creating new debt.

This is the philosophy I've always maintained when I use my VISA,
MasterCard, or Discover.  I can't afford to pay 16%+ per month on any
unpaid balance.

The problem is that many people use credit cards to live beyond their
means.  Some end up in bankrupcy, and the rest of us end up footing
their bills.  For those who profess to be Christians, this presents a
rather poor witness to the rest of the world.

I seem to recall that scripture states one should not charge interest
when giving a loan.  Are there any similar injunctions against accepting
a loan with interest due?
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christianity and economics
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:18:48 GMT

OFM writes:

>[I'm not sure that I want this group to turn into a economics discussion
>group.  I'd encourage people to keep the discussion focused on the
>specifically Christian aspect of things.  I don't get the impression that
>Burkett is making his case based primarily upon economic models.

I am in the process of reading _The Coming Economic Earthquake_.  It is
almost exclusively a book of economics, espousing views which are way out of
step with both conventional conservative and liberal viewpoints.

Burkett and his other conservative christian counterparts are very closely
related to groups such as those who publish _Chiristianity & Crisis_, which,
at least in my reading, is about as knee-jerk liberal as one gets.
Ostensibly, all of these people are reading scripture and applying it to the
world.  It is quite remarkable divergent these applications are.  A radical
centrist such as myself is inevitably led to conclude that scripture is not
driving these interpretations-- the conventional wisdom and prejudices of
the surrounding community is supplying the ends to which the interpretations
are the means.

I will make no bones about it: that is not an acceptable way to read
scripture.

Most denominations and churches these days take a more or less activist
approach to the world; they insist that the morality that they speak and
hear in church is to be taken out of the church and not only be applied
personally, but is to be carried into politics and the like.  I have to
question the wisdom of this because it carries the contempt that people tend
to have for politicians (and especially the contempt for their supposed
idealism and moral standards) back into the church.  Be that as it may, the
direct opposition between different groups of christians remains.

This, I submit, is no way for the Body of Christ to live.

I don't think Larry Burkett is utterly incompetent.  His advice on personal
finance, taken with a grain of salt, has seemed to me to be sound and
properly cautious.  _Economic Eathquake_, however, presents itself to me as
alarmist and lacking any perspective within the variety of differing views.
Someone presenting himself as a christian economist/financial advisor has to
make sense within the context of secular economics-- or else turn away from
it altogether, and speak the gospel solely.

-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: howard@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Bonnie Howard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dating...
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:23:32 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[This posting originally included a couple of pages of quotations, but
it seems to stand on its own just fine.  --clh]

Well, I have been single for 11 years - one of the reasons that I have
remained so is that I really haven't met anyone that I would want to
spend my time with - not trying to be superior, but when you are my
age (49), there are very few real MEN around - most are married...
The ones who are single are usually divorced and they really don't
want committment and they sure don't want the responsibility of a
family.....  I lead a Singles group at our church and just to even get
these guys to come to a gathering - they act like all the women want
to do is to grab them and run away - they don't know how to relate to
women as friends!!!!  I have yet to have more than (1) guy come and
there are several in our church - they always have other plans even
though they have known about the event for (2) months in advance.  GOT
ANY IDEAS?????

I was so disgusted Sunday at church when I went to personally invite
them - that I walked out very disillusioned with them.  I know that I
shouldn't take it personally - anyway that is the comment that they
make - but I have spent a lot of time getting things into place for
this gathering...  I would really like them to come and see that we
can help one another - not be in this for yourself but to reach out
and help the other person instead of only seeing their own need.  One
of the things that I am trying to instill in the singles is to reach
out from their own private circle and see that they help others - that
they are not alone and that they should learn that they are still a
whole person not a half waiting for someone to make them a whole
person... That they can still be a family even though the mother or
father is not there - that the children and the remaining custodial
parent can have fun.  This is not to lock out the non-custodial parent
- they can reach out to the children in the group and do for them.  We
all need to learn to look beyond our own needs.

Thanks for letting me vent my frustrations - I have been the leader
for the last 18 months and sometimes I get discouraged.

Bonnie -
From: fed!m1slw01@uunet.uu.net (Shay Woodside)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Something to keep in mind....
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:16:05 GMT

GOD IS NOT MAN...
GOD IS NOT A CHRISTIAN...
WE CHRISTIANS DO NOT OWN HIM...
From: news@cs.ruu.nl (Six O'Clock News)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bible Software Advice
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:51:36 GMT
Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

>>>>> sl313028@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jon Marcus Madison) (JMM) writes:

JMM> Check this out!  There's a version of the bible that's absolutely FREE
JMM> and works GREAT! (i've got it, i know) it's called the On-Line Bible,
JMM> and it *was* available via anonymous ftp to wuarchive.wustl.edu, but was
JMM> taken off. 

There is a new version (6.0) there in doc/bible.
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.ruu.nl>
From: ncrcae!kwyatt@ccscola.columbiasc.ncr.com (Kershner Wyatt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bible Software Advice
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:50:50 GMT

[Attempts to correspond with him have failed -- messages bounce. Thus
my usual response of sending him the FAQ isn't going to work.  Furthermore,
I don't know that we have any information in the FAQ on the specific
issues he's asking about.  --clh]

Since none of my messages to this group have ever been posted, I assume that
I must address these to the moderator.

Has anyone had any experience with the Bible software and has a recommendation
for any of the DOS-based version?  I am running either a 386/486 with adequate
hard drive capacity, EGA, Windows 3.1.

I am interested in two different packages:

NIV
NAB for Catholics

It would be useful if the two versions could run simultaneously under Windows,
so that I can compare the NIV (Protestant) with the NAB-C.  I am using this
for our Bible Studies in our Lutheran Church.  Any goods, bads or other com-
ments of the different features would be greatly appreciated.


-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help Needed
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:23:38 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
>Sir Fredric Hoyle of "Big Bang" fame...

Just a note: The above is exactly backwards.  Fred Hoyle has always been
one of the major _opponents_ of the Big Bang model.  He (with others, e.g.
Tommy Gold) are the major propents of the (now-defunct) Steady State model
of the universe.

(I bow to the opinion of OFM as to whether this merits posting.)
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:21:43 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

Look at it from another angle.  If the wife is *not* submissive, she
is hurting the marriage.  Then again, likewise, if the husband is not
submissive, he is hurting the marriage.  I think the intention is to
prevent one spouse from asserting their will over another.  (The best
way to break up a marriage is for the husband to lovingly point out
that the wife is not being properly submissive)

This arrangement is not meant to be one-sided.  Husbands are commanded
to love their wives, which cannot be if the husband refuses to be
submmissive.  It is the patronizing attitude that "you should be glad
to be a servant to your husband, because God will bless you" that
is in conflict with feminism, not mutual submission.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    "I wonder what's taking Guybrush so long..."
From: rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:38:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Oct.14.00.17.23.1992.23424@geneva.rutgers.edu>, samk@microsoft.com (Sam Kho) writes:
> 
> HOWEVER, charitable deduction laws, property tax exemptions, etc. are by no
> means Christians forcing non-Christians to fund Christianity.  the Christian
> is obligated to pay only as much taxes as legally required.  the US treasury
material edited

> 
> DISCLAIMER:  i'm not against taxes.  the Christian is still to render unto
> Caesar what is Caesar's (but he doesn't have to render unto Caesar more than
> that).
> 
>   - sam -

How about Matt 5:38 and following ?  If the government requires us to
go ONE MILE in taxes, shouldn't we be willing to go TWO ??

Gee Sam, our belligerent, rebellious, American culture doesn't always
fit nicely with Scripture now does it??   And mark it down, I don't
want to pay any more than the minimum tax required either!


Bobby - akgua!rjb
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Created in his image?
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:18:18 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>If you jettison God's impassibility, however, you must be prepared also
>to jettison God's other three "metaphysical attributes"--timelessness,
>immutability, and -- what's the other one? Probably that metaphysical
>albatros, infinity. But if these go, much of the substance of the Christian 
>philosophical/theological tradition goes with it.  Are you prepared to go
>that far?

jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie) writes:

>No, I wouldn't.  But I don't follow your reasoning.  Are you saying that,
>because God is timeless (outside time?), he must then have no emotions?
>If so, then the same reasoning would seem to imply that he has no
>thoughts, either. 

Quite the contrary. That if God is timeless, he must therefore be impassible.
So that if you give up impassibility, you must also give up divine eternity,
where 'eternity' is used here in its technical metaphysical sense of '
timeless'. 

As to having thoughts, a nontemporal mind could not have thoughts in the
sense of his mind thinking now this now that, but it could have thoughts,
though they would all be "totum simul" as Boethius said, simultaneous and
exist together without succession. There could, however, be no 'activity'
of thinking, if this is taken to entail God's active intellectual response
to situations of genuine difficulty requiring thought. This follows from
the more general problem of how a timeless being could 'act' at all, because
the notion of an action logically presupposes and involves

	(A) that an agent, S, brings about a state of affairs, A,
	    such that A comes about either simultaneously with or
	    subsequent to S's intention to bring A about;

	(B) that A itself comes about at some specific time.

These are partly at least the truth-conditions of any description of an 
action.  If they aren't met, then I think whatever you're talking about, it 
isn't action. So, in summary. The doctrine of impassibility presupposes 
that of immutability, and immutability is itself entailed by nontemporality. 

All of these attempts at "paying God metaphysical compliments", however well-
intentioned, only get theologians into trouble. I generally take a neo-
classical line, my version of which rests on a univocal theory of divine 
predication, following Patterson, W. James, Fitch, Charles Hartshorne and A. 
N. Whitehead. There are difficulties with my position too, but they are
far less severe and obvious than of the classical theist, IMO.  
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: barnes@owlnet.rice.edu (Roderick Leon Barnes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: More Faith
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:54:52 GMT
Organization: Rice University

I am a Christian finding myself struggling.  I ask
whoever reads this message to pray for continued growth in my relationship
with God: faith, love, hope, knowledge.  I don't ask fo prayer to end all
my struggles but simply that I would face them in a godly way.

Thankyou.