HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Romans 9:5
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:14:34 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Erwin" == Nothing can equal the worth of the lost... <paiz@ingres.com> writes:

Erwin> In the NIV translation Romans 9:5 reads as:

Erwin> Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human
Erwin> ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Erwin> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Erwin> TEV- they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and
Erwin> Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who
Erwin> rules over all, be praised forever!  Amen.

The theme of this and the previous verses is `the glory that should
have been the Jews' '.  The pinnacle of this glory is that `from them
is traced the human ancestry of Christ.'  Yet what is the point of
characterizing Christ's ancestry as `human'?  For anybody else, the
humanity of their ancestry would be axiomatic.  There would be no
point in mentioning it.  But Christ is `God over all'.  Yet he had
a human ancestry--traced through the Jews.  Thus Paul maintains a
balance, mentioning Christ's divine as well as his human natures. 

So the NIV translation is the one that makes the most sense to me.
If Christ is not `God over all', then there is no point in mentioning
his `human ancestry', or even his humanity.

For a more thorough analysis, see Lenski's commentary on Romans--
if you can find it. (You might have to borrow it from a WELS or
LCMS pastor!)

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran.
From: kenrolph@peg.apc.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: apply Doubting Thomas to today...ho
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:52:22 GMT

About Doubting Thomas

It is interesting that you are thinking about this story at this point in 
history. I have come at it from another direction. At the moment I am in 
the process of writing a police procedural novel in which the main 
character is called Thomas. This was done deliberately to underline a 
certain aspect of his character.

One of his sayings is "I only know what I can prove". The original 
Thomas has always seemed to me to embody the healthy scepticism that will 
not be taken in by charlatans. Jesus response does seem to approve of and 
accept this. By offering the evidence he is saying that "faith" (defined 
as a wilful belief of something unbelievable) is not what is required. It 
is implied that there is proof there, and that faith perhaps is the 
ability to accept this evidence. This is only a quick reply, as I am still 
thinking and plotting the novel.

I had begun to look around for writings on Thomas, but have not come up 
with anything concrete yet.

_____________________________________________________________________

Ken Rolph                                  Blacktown, NSW Australia
                                           peg:kenrolph
                                           kenrolph@peg.pegasus.oz.au
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Signs of the Times (was Re: End of the World Predictions...)
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:26:52 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <Jul.24.02.45.20.1992.27997@dumas.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
writes:

>You didn't quote it far enough. It does state that you will know the season. 
>The illustration of the woman in labor is that she doesn't know the time of
>delivery, but she sure knows when she is in "transition". So it is with the end
>times.  Do we know the hour, (no) do we know the day, (no) are we to know the
>year, (no) or the decade, not necessarily (unless there is no rapture), but you
>will know the season at that is when the dry bones come alive, that is when the
>fig tree (Israel) is in bloom and ready to bare fruit.  

Two questions about this:

(1)  Where does this dry bones image come from and how does it fit into
the passage in Matthew about not knowing the hour, etc.?

(2)  How do you get that the fig tree mentioned in Matthew (and in a
similar way in Lukan parallel passage) refers to Israel?   As far as I
can tell he is just making an analogy with his followers looking at the
signs he speaks of previously and a little later.

Also, related to this...when you speak of the rapture, are you refering to
the secret rapture, and if so where is that presented in the Bible?

>Even so Lord, come.
>Rex

"Behold, I am coming soon!  My reward is with me, and I will give to
everyone according to what he has done.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."  Rev. 22:12,13

"Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: tga20201@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (The Traveller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Eternal Security? (Was Re: Dispensationalism: Distinctives of Church)
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:35:45 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I don't think that Rex's point was that it is impossible for someone who has
received the Holy Spirit to fall away from God, or that God could not bring
someone who had fallen away back into His grace.  Rather, I think his point
was that once someone had fallen away, efforts by human beings to reconcile
the person were doomed to failure.  This is in keeping with the general theme
of the Scriptures that conversion is something done through the action of
the Holy Spirit using the believer as eyes, ears, and mouth.  I.E. We do not
change people, but rather God changes people through us.  If one accepts this,
then I believe it follows that, should one reject the Christian message, only
action by God can change that one's heart back to God.  Efforts by fellow
Christians are useless unless backed by God.
From: st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Love in John 21
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:30:07 GMT

I have heard several elegant sermons preached on John 21 making much of 
the challenge that Jesus gave to Peter.  How first Jesus asks, Simon, 
son of Jona, lovest (agape) thou me, and then later goes to 
"lovest thou (phileo) me?".  The point that is made is that Jesus was willing
to come down to Peter's level and relate at the level of love at which
Peter was capable at the time.

I have a question on this interpretation, though.  Jesus was probably not 
speaking Greek to these men.  So does Aramaic have various words for love
with which the same word game can be played?

Steve Timm

[Even in Greek apparently it's hard to justify these sermons.  There's
an appendix in Brown's Anchor Bible commentary on John comparing uses
of agape and phileo.  He shows no consistent difference in the way
they are used in the NT.  Both Brown and Kittel say that both words
are used to translate a single word in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Hedrick's third law: when preachers start speaking Greek, 9 out of 10
times it wouldn't make sense in English.

--clh]
From: baresson@cbnewsi.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Future Temples
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:02:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Rex mentioned the rediscovery of the ark of the covenant in Eithopia
and infers that it will probably be brought back to Jerusalem. This may be 
the case, although I would suggest that its significence should be downplayed,
because Jeremiah indicates that its importance is past. (Jer 3.16-17)
I believe that there will be 2 temples built; the Dan 9/ Matt 24 temple and 
Ezekiel's Temple.

The "Tribulation" Temple
========================

On the subject of rebuilding the Temple in Israel - An organisation in 
Jerusalem, the Temple Institute, has made the two-thirds of the 92 articles 
and vestments that the Bible says were used in the ancient Temple. This with 
other efforts, is in anticipation of the rebuilding of the Temple and 
re-establishment of worship there.

Pure speculation - the Mosque of Omar will be destroyed by the earthquake
in Ezek 38 - 39 which wipes out the army of Meshesh and Tobol.
This will allow the antichrist to make a 7 year treaty with Israel which 
will include the rebuilding of their temple. (Antichrist rises to power in 
Europe in the power vacuum left by the demise of Russia).

Ezekiel's Temple - A comparison with OT Festivals
================
Festival		Date*		Leviticus 23	Ezekiel 
Passover		24 Apr		v4ff		45.21 
Weeks (Pentecost)	27 May		v9ff		 -
New Year		3 Oct		v23ff		45.18 (No trumpets)
Atonement (Yom Kippur)	13 Oct		v26ff		 -
Booths (Tabernacles)	18 Oct		v33ff		45.23
Sabbath			  -		v1ff		46.1
New Moons		  -		 -		46.3,6

* Taken from a Jewish calendar, may vary ?

Note the following:
There is no Pentecost, for the first fruits (the church) are housed in the
house of heaven.
There is no mention of Atonement - replaced with the knowledge of Christ's
atoning work on the cross.
No trumpets blown at New Year, for the second advent will be past.

Other differences
No High Priest - since our great high priest will be present.
No evening sacrifice - done away with in Christ's sacrifice.
No ark of the covenant (see Jer 3.16-17) - as the Lord is There.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)
From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:12:08 GMT
Organization: Rice University

>In the Old Testament acts of buggery were associated with ritual practises
>of non-jews - and were as such to be avoided.

>In the New Testament Paul condemns sexual immorality in the form of 
>Pedastry, rife in Greece, and the orgiastic lifestyle of the Romans. He
>never saw two people of the same sex 'in love' and expressing that love
>physically - such a thing was unthinkable in that time.

I beg to differ.  Greek homosexuality was not all of one sort, and there
were "loving homosexual relationships," which were seen as good.
Read the Iliad, one of the most famous Greek epics, for an example of this.
Akhillaeus has a modern-type homosexual relationship, and when his lover
is killed (I don't remember his name right now) he goes on a berserk killing
spree.  It's one of the major turning points of the story!

>As such it is rediculous to use texts from the Bible to condemn homosexuals,
>as the 'gay culture' (horrible phrase I disagree with - but you get my drift),
>of today simply did not exist.

Actually, it is an interesting topic whether or not those verses are meant
to be peculiar to the time or not.  I would be interested in seeing *logical*
arguments for either side.

Ernest Mueller
From: dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 'X'-Gay:  Two more frauds
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:08:52 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center

In article <Jul.28.02.52.17.1992.24725@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes:
>
>             Another "ex-gay" leader admits the "ex-gay" claim is
>             a lie.  David Caligiuri, former director of Free

Well, that settles it then.  Proof by example:  homosexuals can't change their
behavior.  Presumably God is also powerless in this area.  Of course, by the
same reasoning all of Christianity is a fraud:  just look at Bakker and 
Swaggart.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag            | Don't give me facts, I want the Truth.
dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com | 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Of course it doesn't prove anything.  However someone had asked for
examples of people who had changed.  In that context, it's worth some
cautionary examples as well.  It helps understand the difficulties
involved, and acts as a caution that not all of the examples given may
survive close examination.  I've seen such examples cited even in
conservative writeups, to make exactly these points.  --clh]
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:30:08 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

[I'm beginning to find the contributions in this discussion primarily
duplicative.  Thus I'm about to regard it as closed. --clh]

In article <Jul.24.03.16.02.1992.3873@dumas.rutgers.edu> psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland) writes:
>>In article <Jul.22.02.38.24.1992.19133@dumas.rutgers.edu> GAVIN@phdlab.commerce.ubc.ca (Gavin Chin) writes:
>
>>>On a different thread, does anyone know FIRST-HAND of any homosexual
>>>who, after accepting Christ and becoming a well grounded Christian,
>>>renounce their homosexuality and become heterosexual?  If you don't
>>>have any first hand stories, can you please share some from RELIABLE
>>>sources?
>
Yes, I know a number of such individuals, although I don't like the
use of the phrase "became heterosexual."  I know a number of people,
first-hand, who struggle with homosexuality at one level or another,
most of whom have been deeply involved in the lifestyle at one point,
have gotten out of it, and have gone on to deal with what got them
into it in the first place.  I don't know _anyone_ who doesn't still
deal with the pain at some level of longing for same-sex love, though
for many that no longer takes a sexual direction.  Many of these 
same folks have gone on into marriage and enjoyed heterosexual
relations with their partners.  They are _not_ of the school of
closet homosexuals in desperate heterosexual marriages; they and
their partners know full well where they've come from and what,
with God's grace, they will deal with at some level the rest of
their lives.

I have heard some (a few) say that all specifically homosexual urges
are gone.  But that hasn't really been the goal for most of them;
learning to live with the pain of what they never got (even through
homosexual sex) and will always, to one degree, long for has been
the focus.

I, too, can't give out names but would be happy to talk more about this
through email.


-- 
===============================================================================
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being very
wasteful.  How true that is."--J. Danforth Quayle to United Negro College Fund
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (7-21)
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:08:36 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Tuesday, July 21:

     For the kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but 
means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit.  <Romans 14: 17>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Compuserve - 72250.3521@compuserve.com.  Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:37:55 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au

In <Jul.22.02.37.23.1992.18931@dumas.rutgers.edu> mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:

>[Christ] brought his forgiveness to those who needed it the most, that
>is, the most sinful, but he required their repentance.

I would have to disagree, rather He brought His forgiveness first and
foremost to the weak and the hopeless, those who sin because they have
given up on hope. He showed them that through His forgivenes and support
they could become a power for good. He didn't say, 'It's okay to sin 
because you are weak.' He said, 'Accept Me and you will be strong and
sin no more.'

--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."
From: kmm@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Megill)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:19:45 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

The comment below reminded me of something that I think many Christians
are confused about.  It is not helped by the fact that there are at least
a couple of different ways to use the word "lust".


In article <Jul.28.03.20.06.1992.25316@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> shrum@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ken Shrum) writes:

>... The point, then, is whether homosexual inclinations, like lustful
>inclinations, are sinful.  I'm going to ignore homosexual practice for
>the moment, since it's beside the point;  if to lust after someone
>in your heart is to commit adultery, then to have homosexual inclinations
>is to engage in homosexual practices...

Jesus never said that having sexual desires for someone was sinful.

Matthew 5:28 says:

	"... but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman
	to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in
	his heart."  (NASB)

This doesn't say that it is adultery in the heart to lust for a woman.
It is adultery in the heart to LOOK at a woman IN ORDER TO lust for
her. 

Thus if I happen to pass a billboard with a lurid ad on it, and
thoughts or feelings of sexual desire pass through my mind, that 
is not yet adultery in the heart.  But if I linger over those thoughts, 
and look back at the billboard to enjoy the thrill of imagined adultery
of that woman, THAT is adultery in my heart.  

Many people use the word lust to mean strong sexual desire.
To be sexually attracted to someone is not sin, although it 
may be temptation.  On the other hand, embracing that temptation 
in my thoughts IS sin.  Undressing a woman with my eyes is sin.  
Fantasizing that I am making love to her is sin.  (Unless she 
is my wife!)   If this is what someone means by lust, then, 
yes, lust is sin.

This important distinction makes the line between temptation and
sin a lot clearer.  Even when it is only internal, sin still
involves a deliberate choice.

Kevin Megill
kmm@ector.cs.purdue.edu
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 'X'-Gay:  Two more frauds
Date: 31 Jul 92 07:26:17 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State University

A few comments about 'ex-gay' ministries.  I feel I can make them because
I'm personally acquainted with some of the current and former leaders of
some of these organizations, and have been on the mailing list of these
organizations and Evangelicals Concerned for many years.

(1) there are people involved with them that really and truly believe
    that they've accomplished something for themselves, and can help
    others to do the same.  But it doesn't work for everyone, and they
    don't seem to stress this enough.

(2) These organizations are woefully undersupported by churches and
    participants.  The financial problems of running these organizations
    are real, and makes it difficult to concentrate on doing what you're
    trying to do.  Sometimes the stress gives way to giving in to various
    lusts.  Unlike televangelists, this is NOT a big-money enterprise.

    The lack of support from churches is not only financial.  Many churches
    hold to the idea that 'once gay always gay', and that gays are unredeem-
    able sinners, so why should they support these organizations in any
    way ?  The church's support of most 'counter-culture' ministries
    often falls short, in fact.

(3) The people involved are dealing face-to-face with with the temp-
    tations that they themselves took much time and pain to overcome.

(4) What defines being 'cured' of homosexuality ?  The absence of temp-
    tation ?  The absence of 'falling' for X days/weeks/months/years ?

(5) Not all ex-gay ministries are alike.  Some hold to a very high standard,
    others try to hold to it, and others make a meager attempt.

The biggest problem I have with Evangelicals Concerned's newsletter is
that much of the newsletter is given to 'bashing' ex-gay ministries, taking
quotes out of context, and other actions that I would consider un-Christ-
like, much like how some Christians feel that the end result justifies the
means in 'the Lord's work'.
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
"Recession: your friend loses his job.  Depression: you lose your job.
Recovery: Bush loses his job" - Bill Davidsen
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (7-23)
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:43:49 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Thursday, July 23:

     Seek peace and pursue it.  For the eyes of Jehovah are upon the 
righteous ones, and his ears are toward their supplication; but the 
face of Jehovah is against those doing bad things.  <1 Peter 3: 11, 12>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Compuserve - 72250.3521@compuserve.com.  Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: shrum@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ken Shrum)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:20:09 GMT

Many of the arguments in this thread have been of the form:
Homosexuality is a sin, like any other, and we cannot exclude sinners
from our congregations or the ministry.  While the conclusion is true,
it isn't to the point;  while we cannot exclude sinners, we can and
should exclude unrepentant sinners (assuming that they cannot be
brought into repentance).  Any argument that accepts homosexuality as
a sin is doomed to failure.

The point, then, is whether homosexual inclinations, like lustful
inclinations, are sinful.  I'm going to ignore homosexual practice for
the moment, since it's beside the point;  if to lust after someone
in your heart is to commit adultery, then to have homosexual inclinations
is to engage in homosexual practices.

Quite frankly, I don't know what the answer is.  The most persuasive
argument that I've seen thus far has been the fellow who, strong in his
faith, felt that he was being led by the Holy Spirit to renounce his
homosexuality.  Unfortunately, that was a second-hand account.  I am
familiar with the hermeneutical arguments on each side, and have come
to no particular conclusion.

My best argument is that I believe that God provided us with our sexual
nature, and that in some people this has taken the form of homosexuality.
I cannot back up this belief, but I think that it is more likely than
homosexuality being a perversion of our sexual nature.  God made our
bodies, and called them good.  I cannot believe that He would restrict
how we may take pleasure in that creation, as long as responsible
sapients are involved (yes, I draw the line at children and animals,
since I don't believe that sexual relations are appropriate for those
placed in our care).  Acts 10:15 (this is toward the beginning of Peter
being sent to baptize the Gentile household) reads "What God has made
clean, do not call unclean."

This issue has troubled me for some time.  I'll pray about it, and
see if I can get any guidance.  If I do, I'll let you know.

    Ken Shrum