HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: God the Father
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:59:31 GMT

The truth of an aphorism often lies in how it contradicts
a common misconception.

Louie Crew (no relation to Motley? Oh, spelled different) 
often refers to God as "She". I think this is a tremendous
insight since we usually refer to God as "He". 

One issue I have with Mormons is that they think
God is literally a male, with a female wife in heaven, and that
He is literally "our father", that his wife literally gave birth
to us in heaven. I think when Jesus called God "our Father" it
was in contrast to the concept of God "the King." The people
He taught understood the concept of a loving father, gently and
personally guiding and disciplining us, instead of some far
off King setting arbitrary rules. Remember who their current
king was? Unfortunately for many people today the metaphor of 
father might mean someone who caused our existence and then
abandoned us, or worse abuses us. 

Any discription of God is just a metaphor, sometimes 
the more shocking the better. God himself shocks us often
by his unorthodox techniques, Jesus is the best proof of that.
So God is Male and Female, but neither. He is our father, our
mother, our sister, our brother, our wife, our husband, our daughter, 
our son, our cousin, our best friend. 

Let's think of some modern metaphors:

He is the Supreme Software Engineer, straightening out the
spaghetti code of our sins.

He is our crazy uncle who died and left us an old shoe box. When 
we open it there's enough money to pay off our mortgage, our car,
and all our credit cards.

He is the Ultimate Dishwasher, scrubbing the greasy build-up of our
sins from the plates of our souls, exposing the beautiful pattern
underneath.

He is our favorite teacher, who stays after class with us as long as 
we want, who makes the subject fun and interesting, who makes 
us work and happily gives us A's.


Chris Mussack


Chris Mussack
From: bjb@macsch.com (Bryan J. Blumberg)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: James Dobson's Nov. '92 Newsletter
Date: 13 Dec 92 07:16:22 GMT
Organization: Systems Integration Branch

In article <Dec.11.02.28.21.1992.14091@athos.rutgers.edu> Stephen Watson,
watson@sce.carleton.ca writes:
>Note to Bryan: the Canadian gov't recently passed a law against
>anti-gay discrimination in the Canadian military.  Perhaps your friend
>would consider a move north?

Thank you for pointing that out.

By the way, the Australian and New Zealand Governments also
eliminated their prohibitions against lesbians and gays in
the military over the last couple of weeks.

========================================
Bryan  J. Blumberg, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation
815 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, California  90041-1777
(213) 259-4914, B_BLUMBERG@MACSCH.COM
From: roge0028@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christmas on the 25th.  Why? (was Re: Messianic Jews and
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:51:45 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <Dec.17.00.15.20.1992.9779@farside.rutgers.edu> amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik) writes:
>Dan Lieuwen writes:
>>December 25th as Christmas:

I am not sure if this is absolutely correct, but I know that many
Christian holidays were placed specifically on certain pagan feast
days.  This was done to stop the supposed `Christian' who attended
both the christian holidays and the pagan feast days.  I have been 
told that Christmas was placed on a pagan holiday whose signs were
the tree and the wreath which are symbols of our current holiday.

If anyone has any further information of this subject please
e-mail it to me. Thanks in advance.....

--Chris

:Christopher Rogers            | 500 Fry St #9
:University of Minnesota       | Saint Paul, Minnesnowta 55104
:Department of Red Tape        | what, did you think I wanna give you my
:roge0028@student.tc.umn.edu   | phone number or something???

[As far as I've been able to tell, this is simply a guess.  That is,
we don't actually know why Christmas was celebrated on Dec 25, because
the earliest documents don't give the reasons.  There have been a
number of other suggestions here, several of which seem reasonable.
--clh]
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wedding Scripture Verses.
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:25:37 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln

ummak027@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Anson Sen Sau Mak) writes:

>You can try Song Of Songs, since this are a lot of scripture about love;
>when my church friends got married, they always choose scriptures from there.

Especially remarkable: Song of Songs 8:6-7.


--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 
 .. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
 .     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  . 
   .         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christmas on the 25th. Why? (was Re: Messianic Jews and Christmas)
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:37:43 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

cnews@umr.edu (UMR Usenet News Post) writes:

>Armenian churches commemorate the birth of Jesus on January 6.

>I've been told that the December 25 date comes from synchrotizing
>a pagan holiday celebrating Nimrod's birthday.  Can anyone verify this?

I dont know the proofs, but it has been proposed that Dec 25 was
the birthday of Tammuz, the son of Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod.
Since Nimrod was said to have gone to possess the sun at his death,
Tammuz was said to be the son of the Sun. The worship of Tammuz by
the elders of the house of Israel is depicted in Ezekiel 8. This
same theory contends that Chaldean Tammuz worship is also the underlying
reason for moving the Sabbath to SUNday, and that all of this was codified
by Constantine, a pagan who "converted" to Christianity for political
expediency.

I received a letter containing this information from James Raymond
and the Living Word ministry in Los Angeles (they have a daily radio
broadcast here).
_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307

[This sounds to me like what I'd classify as "lunatic fringe".  The
Christian term for Sunday is "the Lord's Day" -- the best theory I
know is that Christian worship is then because that's the day of
Jesus' resurrection.  That's certainly the explanation given by the
early writers, and it's referred to in early Christian calendars as
"Dominica" (which is Lord or Lord's).  While it's called SUNday in
English, many other languages use words based on "Lord's Day". If I
remember my Spanish, it's domingo, which seems pretty clearly based on
Dominica.  In Russian, the word for Sunday is based on "resurrection".

The problem is that we don't have any real good historical records
about the establishment of Sunday.  However there are records before
Constantine.  Most scholars accept Acts 20:7 and I Cor 16:2, though a
few groups who worship on SATURNday do not.  (I say this not because I
believe they are Pagan, but to show that people who want to play with
words can discredit anything.)  It's also mentioned by Ignatius,
Justin Martyr, etc.  Constantine was involved in making secular
legislation to make it a day of rest.  As far as I know, there's no
reason to doubt the sincerity of Constantine's conversion.  If you
want the gory details (complete with lots of evidence from his
letters, etc.), see Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians."

Unfortunately I can't comment on whether there's any connection
between the Unconquered Sun on which Dec 25 is based and Tammuz.

--clh]
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Night Club Dancing
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:01:17 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>We have a responsibility to be sensitive and aware of others and 
>how our actions can either draw others closer to Jesus, or cause them to 
>move further away from others.  Scripture tell us we should see to it that 
>others are drawn closer to Jesus.  

It is also possible to drive people away in this manner.  It can give
the impression that to become a Christian is to become a neo-puritan,
with the sole outlet for fun being bible studies.  They might feel
that they can't ever become so perfect, so why bother.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    "I wonder what's taking Guybrush so long..."
From: eng10459@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAN CHEE LEONG)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There will be a collision?
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:15:00 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Julian Shillcock (julian@sfu.ca) wrote:
: u presumably know abou tcomet Smith-Tuttle that is scheduled to be in the
: same place at the same time as the earth in 2126? It is approx. 5 km
: in radius and travelling at 60 km/s. But until the orbit is known to
: greater accuracy the hit probability cannot be calculated. Once oribt
: tracking takes place its path will be known as certainly as the voyager
: type spacecraft. Although there are some extra problems involved with
: the comet spewing out matter that can perturb its orbit.
: I am disappointed not to be able to be around for it. I suspect a lot
: of people will start predicting the end of the world. For once they may be
                       ^^^^^^^^^^
Eversince I don't know when, many have attempted to predict the end of
the world but of course, failed.  The Jehovah Witnesses claimed that it
was supposed to be 1914.  Later they had it revised.  Nostradamus also
made such predictions as well.

Our imagination can run very wild.  So suppose by 2126, the comet is
really going to hit the earth with the predicted disaster.  Maybe Christ
would have come even earlier.  Don't misunderstand me.  I am not trying
to predict His coming.  The point I am trying to make here is that, we
must and should step up our efforts in making Him known to the world.  

In His Love,
Chee Leong
From: jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help For Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:07:38 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>There is help for JWs who are beginning to question the
>validity of the Watchtower...

This can be potentially dangerous.  As a Mormon, I am well acquainted
with the problems of belonging to a minority Christian denomination.
Some elements of mainstream Christianity consider it their duty to
point out, often with considerable "zeal," the error of my ways.
Without delving into the whys and wherefores of such activity, I'd
merely like to point out that services like the above which offer
"help" to those questioning their faith are often nothing more than
clearinghouses for questionable apologetics.

Some publications which attempt to set Mormons straight rely on
altered or selective quotations, vilification of leaders or members,
misrepresentation or misinterpretation of doctrines, speculation
represented as fact, and sometimes outright falsehood.  I suspect that
Jehovah's Witnesses endure critics who employ similar tactics.

Most of these critics have studied their victims in depth, and have a
more detailed knowledge of a religion than many of its adherents.
They selectively present this information in a way which emphasizes
its flaws.  A fair examination of beliefs is not the objective.  The
tactic is straightforward -- most readers simply do not have the time,
inclination, nor skills to ferret out the deception and accept its
conclusions at face value.

Now the disclaimers.  I don't agree with many Jehovah Witness
doctrines.  Nor do I condone some of their methods of proselyting and
pedagogy.  However, I do believe they should be allowed to worship as
they see fit without harrassment.

I do not presume to accuse Frank DeCenso of the practices and
attitudes I described above, nor to imply that the material he has
brought to light is unfair.  I merely hope that is not the case.  The
sad fact is that many well-meaning folks merely quote high-profile,
"debunk"-style authors like Walter Martin under the presumption that
since it's in print it must be true.  Well-meaning promulgators of
these authors are similarly innocent victims of shoddy scholarship and
deceptive reporting.

Should religions be exempt from criticism?  No.  Criticsms, however,
can be either well-researched, well-balanced examinations of beliefs;
or they can be unwanted, unfair attempts to destroy faith.  I don't
believe that Christians of any profession should be engaged in the
deceptive attack of the tenets of others.

In summary, extreme caution should be exercised by those reading and
those providing critical information about a religious belief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Jay Windley  *  University of Utah  *  Salt Lake City
                    jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Virgin Birth
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:58:43 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Dec.14.00.08.37.1992.2960@geneva.rutgers.edu> armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:
>In article <Dec.13.00.18.12.1992.1046@geneva.rutgers.edu> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>>
>>As a doctrine it does not really make any difference.  However, I must
>>believe it because if I do not, I render Matthew and Luke to be fiction
>>writers.  How can I believe anything else they write, when their gospels
>>start with a fiction?
>>
>How can you believe anything Jesus said when his parables were fiction?
>
>Yes, I know, he identified many of his sayings as parables. But where is it
>written in the Bible that fiction must be labeled fiction for our
>convenience. Psalms can be found outside the book of Psalms. We
>recognize them as poetry by their form.

It need not be labeled, one can tell by form (as in the example of the Psalms
outside of the book of Psalms).  However, when we read, for example, the first
three chapters of Luke, it is either clear that we are reading history (take
out the virgin birth aspect, and no one would argue about it being history; it
is only this aspect that causes questions), or we have no capability of telling
any of Luke as history or fiction.

Tell me, if Luke 1-3 is fiction, how do you tell what is non-fiction in Luke?
The real answer to that question is you go to the book with a series of
pre-suppositions and doctrines and theology and beliefs, and pick and choose.
Whatever happens to fit your views, you take as true, what doesn't becomes
labeled a fiction.

Alternatively, we can take the book of Luke as history, and then see what it
tells us.  As C.S. Lewis points out (I think it was in The Abolition of Man,
though I can't remember) the problem with modern literary criticism is that
the critics spend all their time trying to figure out what level of development
the author was at, and where he/she fits in the literary spectrum, and so on,
and never asking themselves what the author is saying and what if it is true!
From: county!davem@lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There is no god
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:59:45 GMT
Organization: LaserMaster R&D, Minneapolis, MN  USA

In article <Dec.9.00.43.08.1992.7318@geneva.rutgers.edu> roge0028@student.tc.umn.edu writes:

>How about this one--without God there is no love--how can you explain Love
>without God -- all is just physical attraction for reproduction's case.  
>Just like the animals.  So, if you take these premises as true--explain the
>love you have for your mother???  If you can do this without God I will be very suprised.

Sorry, I don't take these premises as true.  Why should I?  Can't I love my 
mother without having some superstitious belief in some god?  Think it 
means I want to sleep with Mommy?  What you have proposed, my friend, is a 
non sequitar.  Let me ask you this:

How can you explain love *AND* the existence of god?  Explain death, 
torture, suffering, disease, hemmaroids, famine, war, etc and tell me in the 
same breath how an all-powerful and all-loving god can allow it to exist.  
The only restriction is that you can't use the Bible.  Quoting it would be 
wasting bandwidth on an atheist like me.  Using the Satan myth won't cut it 
either, since an all-powerful, loving god wouldn't allow that to exist.

DaveMac




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen!  You can't fight in here.  This is the War Room.
                                                - Dr. Strangelove
------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------
mail: davem@county.lmt.mn.org | flames: alt.good.news | Opinions=mine
------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Catholic parish closing? (was Re: Is Christianity really the ONLY way?)
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:34:14 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Dec.16.23.55.32.1992.9627@farside.rutgers.edu> dl2y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Donna Marie Lewis) writes:
>To all at soc.religion.christian, 
>                        Please pray for the University Oratory of the
>Holy Spirit Parish. This fine parish, which has brought many people to
>Christ , is in danger of being surpressed by the Catholic bishop of
>Pittsburgh. 

   Why is the parish liable to be closed?  Bishops don't usually
"suppress" people or parishes lightly.  Since you used that word, I
assume it's not merely a financial problem, as is usually the case
with parish closings.

   I will pray that there remain there a parish proclaiming the
authentic teaching of Christ's Church.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jesus, son of Mary
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:36:43 GMT

With respect to two replies from Michael Siemon:

First, I never meant to imply that the *virginity8 of the V.B. was supposed
to support the humanity of Jesus.

Second, I've been thinking about he observation about the H.S. contributing
half of the genome.  I can see the point, but I think it leads into a worse
mess if it is assented to.  If the H.S.'s function is simply to "add the
divinity", it seems to me that we are led inexorably towards rejection of
the Chalcedon formulation; the divinity is definitely inferior to the
humanity.  On the other hand, a created sperm cell is a human as Adam, right?

I find the idea intriguing, but ultimately not compelling.
-- 
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: xxbrent@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Brent Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Challenging Christmas carol
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:16:11 GMT

My wife sang the following song in a church choir a number of years
ago back when she was a member of the Methodist Church.  It created
quite a stir with some of the members.  Does anyone know anything
about the composer or the song?  I have a feeling that the song
would tend to challenge people.


"Standing In The Rain", by Sydney Carter

1.	No use knocking on the window
	There is nothing we can do, sir.
	All the beds are booked already - 
	There is nothing left for you, sir.

Chorus	Standing in the rain
	Knocking on the window
	Knocking on the window
	On a Christmas Day.
	There he is again
	Knocking on the window
	Knocking on the window
	In the same old way.

2.	No use knocking on the window -
	Some are lucky, some are not, sir.
	We are Christian men and women,
	But we're keeping what we've got, sir.
	- chorus -

3.	No, we haven't got a manger
	No, we haven't got a stable
	We are Christian men and women
	Always willing, never able.
	- chorus -

4.	Jesus Christ has gone to heaven
	One day he'll be coming back, sir.
	In this house he will be welcome
	But we hope he won't be black, sir.
	- chorus -

5.	Wishing you a merry Christmas
	We will now go back to bed, sir.
	Till you woke us with your knocking
	We were sleeping like the dead, sir.
	- chorus -

--
Warm regards,
Brent Anderson
xxbrent@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is Christianity really the ONLY way?
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:28:05 GMT
Organization: l'organisation, c'est moi.

In article <Dec.14.00.09.12.1992.2971@geneva.rutgers.edu>, st14@cornell.edu (Stephen Tseng) writes:
|> I've been having difficulty trying to understand something.[...]
|> If God saves even one person who didn't accept Christ, then Jesus really 
|> is not the one and only way. 
|> 
|> There seems to be four ways out of this logical trap.
|> 
|> 1)Jesus encompasses much more than just the Man who died on the Cross.
|> Perhaps Jesus may be embodied in other philosophies and religions which
|> truly seek a closer relationship with the Creator. Thus, Jesus may
|> represent those Universal truths that are present in both Christianity and
|> many other religions. In this case, Christians have to broaden their view
|> of Christ, and realize that though Jesus may be the only way, perhaps the
|> same cannot be said for Christianity.

Hi, Stephen--

(a) I'd put it the other way around: Jesus doesn't represent other (imperfect)
philosophies and religions -- because He doesn't even "represent" the doctrines
of Christianity!  Rather, Christian doctrine represents (i.e., communicates)
Him.  *He*, our God, is the ultimate reality which religion conveys and doctrine
describes.

(b) Can a non-Christian religion convey some truths about God, or at least some
truths from God?  Obviously the answer is: somewhat!  It would be hard to come
up with an example of a religion with absolutely no real truths or values in it
whatsoever.

(c) So the question arises: are the truths in a non-Christian religion enough to
save a person?  Well, no; for believing in even *Christian* doctrines doesn't
save a person, God does.   A person is saved, according to Scripture, if he
"believes and is baptized"; if he enters into a relationship with Christ.

(d) God is just, and He judges the thoughts and motives of our hearts.  He knows
that the will-to-believe may exist in a person, even if *knowledge* of Jesus is
lacking.  Such a one who desires goodness and truth *implicitly desires Christ*
and would embrace Him if the ignorance were remedied.  

(And here I speculate:)  Will the good God reject such a person at the hour of
death?  Surely not.

Such a person, albeit unawares, has a relationship with Jesus, and therefore has
a real (although incomplete) fellowship with his Church.

(e) All this, of course, does not diminish our responsibility to spread the
Gospel and make disciples: to help people know, love, and serve God.

(f) As was recently mentioned in another context, the Catholic Church has no
specific teaching on the eternal destiny of unbaptized persons of good will. 
(So the above is my personal view; if any of it is contrary to sound
doctrine, I hereby retract it!   :-) )

Best wishes--
---
Richard Chonak, norris@athena.mit.edu                                      INTP