HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccla@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Lee Askew)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Giving if your Heart
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:36:26 GMT
Organization: James Cook University

As a not-yet-a-christian, but feeling the power/conviction of Jesus, I
find it VERY VERY VERY hard to go that last step and 'GIVE' my heart to
the Lord.

Infact I am finding it probably the hardest thing that I have ever done.
I would like to know how other people went about this last step and what they
felt??

I know it is different for each and everyone of us, but any help would
be most gratefull.

Thanks Lee.
From: cawa@css.itd.umich.edu (Chris Pugh)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage to a Catholic outside a Catholic Church
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:13:26 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services

In article <Aug.25.02.10.47.1992.18946@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>My current understanding is that, as a general rule, a Catholic has to
>be married by a Catholic priest, or the marriage is invalid.

[I had responded that I thought any marriage between baptized
Christians was valid, however a marriage between a Catholic and
non-Catholic without proper permissions might be illicit.  There
is a difference between invalid -- i.e. not a marriage, and
illicit -- a marriage, but one done in violation of church rules.
The "this is completely wrong" below refers to jhpb's original comment.
--clh]

This is completely wrong.  clh is correct that the Church recognizes
any marriage between two baptized Christians.  In order for the marriage to be  
recognized as licit for a Catholic, the marriage must either take place before 
a priest or the Catholic party may obtain a dispensation from his/her
bishop which will allow the marriage to licitly occur before a minister of
a different faith.  These dispensations used to be rather difficult to 
obtain, because there was a feeling that Catholics should only be marrying
Catholics, but recently the dispensations are given almost as a matter of
course.  If you are interested, contact your local parish priest who will
have the appropriate forms to fill out.  My fiancee and I have just
completed this process (accompanied by some lengthy discussions about what
were expecting of the marriage, families, children, etc.)  All in all, it
was an exciting and wonderful process.

Regardless of whether the marriage is licit or not, it is still valid if
not performed by a priest or with a dispensation.  If you are planning
on continuing to practice as a Catholic, however, you should seek out the
dispensation.

I am typing this off the top of my head.  I can get the appropriate canon
citations tonight if necessary.

Chris

___________________________________________________________________________
Christopher A. Pugh             e-mail: cawa@css.itd.umich.edu
					Christopher_Pugh@um.cc.umich.edu
					USERW58U@umichum.bitnet
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Peter's Vision
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:34:28 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <Aug.23.20.12.26.1992.21768@athos.rutgers.edu> Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu writes:
>
>That is if Peter was really learning that and teaching that.  I believe
>that what his vision was an exhortation against was the man-made rule of
>defilement by association (re: the clean foods that Peter could eat were
>defiled or common for being in the presence of unclean foods, but God
>declares do not call common what has been cleansed).  This was then to
>apply in Peter's dealings with the Gentiles.



If that's the case, then why do we use Peter's vision to justify the
eating of pork today? The pork prohibition was a divine, not man made
law in the OT.

I'm confused!
From: davidson@ccrs.emr.ca (David Davidson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: A question about Jesus...
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:32:51 GMT
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa

If anyone would know, I suppose it would be one of you.
So what does the "H" stand for anyway? Just curious. 

David



My oppinions do not necessarily reflect those of the CCRS, and 
all of the usual disclaimer stuff.
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: slavery
Date: 30 Aug 92 07:11:31 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

>conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes:

>>I would be
>>interested in knowing more about opinions on slavery in Europe prior
>>to the Age of Discovery--did St. Thomas have an opinion (he had one
>>on everything else :-).

I haven't found an actual St Thomas Aquinas quote, but here's 
something relevant from Christopher Dawson's Religion and the Rise
of Western Culture (Sheed & Ward 1950 London, p205). The quote comes
straight after a reference to St Thomas.

'Medieval philosophy was dominated by the ideal of unity. Mankind was
one great society, and above all the regenerated human race, that
portion of mankind which was incorporated in the Church, was united by its 
membership of Christ, its head, by its allegience to the divine law
and by its dedication to one transcendent end. This unity formed a complex
hierarchical organism, a body with many members, each having a vital function
to fulfil, each with its own office and ministry for the service of the whole.

'This doctrine of society involve the principle of hierarchical
subordination at every stage, but unlike the Aristotelean theory
it does not involve total subordination or the institution of slavery.
...

'The medieavl idea of liberty ... was not the right of the individual to 
follow his own will, but the privilege of sharing in a highly organised 
form of corporate life which possessed its own constitution and rights of
self-government. ... every individual had his place and his rights in the
life of the gild.

Hope that's of some interest, David and all.
-ricko
From: wagner@navier.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:21:13 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Eric" == Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com> writes:

> On <23 Aug 1992 08:48> Joseph H. Buehler (5:7104/2) said to All :
> JHB>The Papacy -- the See of Peter -- and the Faith are inseparable.

Eric> Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:

Steve> I would question the grounds of your identification of "the papacy"
Steve> with the "see of Peter". The bishop of Alexandria was called "pope"
Steve> long before the bishop of Rome was, and his title is still today
Steve> "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa".

I second the question.  Eric gave an answer regarding the use of the
word `pope', but did not make a connection between the `See of Peter'
and the modern notion of the papacy.  As far as I can tell, the 
papacy evolved over time.  Eric's explanation, below, seems to confirm
that.  In the early church there was no supreme pontiff, all the
bishops had equal standing.  We don't, for example, see Peter
exercising authority over the other apostles, although he did
demonstrate a certain amount of leadership.  Later, it seems that 
the Bishop of Rome became the administrator for the churches of Italy,
and, according to Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea, the Bishop of
Alexandria became the administrator of the churches in the East.

I'd like to know exactly what was meant by the word `See'.  Can
someone give me a dictionary definition for the word as it was
used in `See of Peter'?

Eric> The reason for this is that Pope used to be a general title of
Eric> honor for various bishops; it did not always refer exclusively
Eric> to the bishop of Rome.  However, over time the use of the term
Eric> for just any bishop died out (in the Catholic church) and it
Eric> came to be applied exclusively to the Bishop of Rome.

David Wagner
a confessional Lutheran

[Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Ed., Copyright 1991 Oxford Univ. Press
/see/2 <<si:>> n.[Eccl] 
1. the area under the authority of a bishop or archbishop, a diocese ("the
   see of Norwich").
2. the office or jurisdiction of a bishop or archbishop ("fill a vacant
   see").

"See of Rome"[RC Ch] the papacy, the Holy See.

ME f. AF se(d) ult. f. L sedes seat f. sed&emac.re sit 

There have certainly been changes, but some of our Catholic posters
have cited writings as early as the 2nd Cent. suggesting that 
Rome had at least a special level of prestige in the Church
internationally.

--clh]
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re. money and mouths
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:38:34 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Aug.31.02.37.33.1992.25652@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>In this day of financial disclosure I would dearly love someone to puncture
>my cynicism:  those loudest in favor of having private charities handle
>distribution of alms --- do they themselves gives proportionately more of
>their substance to those charities than those favoring government aid to
>the poor?
>
This isn't a fair contest. Those who favor government as the chief vehicle
are already "giving" in taxes. The rest of us are forced to go along and
"give" also. For us to puncture that cynicism, we would not only have to
continue bearing an outrageous tax burden (FAR above anything the 1913 authors
of the income tax EVER intended - fact of history) but we would then have
to give another percentage above and beyond that just to match you.

Now if we make the whole deal voluntary, then THERE would be a really
interesting comparison: the socialist minded can donate their
dollars to the government, trusting it to wisely distribute, and the
Christians and conservatives can donate their dollars to any non-
governmental charities of their own choice, with the same intention.
It'll never happen. But if it did, I think our opponents would be in
for some major surprises (provided they had the guts to look at the
honest numbers).

When government is used as the force to take money from people, then
automatically the bodies of charity and assistance to which they were
formerly contributing MUST diminish in effectiveness - because there
is less money available.  Now Christians must either suffer financial
hardships to continue supporting their beliefs in this area or they
must devote more of their time to obtaining more wealth (which in itself
one must be careful to have the right mindset about or it in turn becomes
a trap) just to stay even.

It is an abased, not an enlightened view of mankind which drives the
currently popular idealogy of the state meeting all our problems for
us. After all, the Constitution draws some definite limits about 
the government and religion already; where better to remove Christian
influence and function in areas of help and charity than by employing
the government to do it, simultaneously stripping vast amounts of
wealth from the general populace?

Consider as an example, the sheer quantity of charitable work done
over the centuries by just one Christian body, the Catholic Church.
Whatever you may think of their theological stance or exegesis, this
one institution provides more help of all kinds around the world
than most governments ever have in all their existence - today.

Whence then this idea that all people are greedy, snivelling pigs
hiding in their churches, unwilling to help the hurting? It cometh
not from scripture, nor from our own leaders.  Our foes do accuse us
falsely IN MOST CASES.
						Pete
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Baptismal Hair-Splitting (Was Re: And what *is* a Christian?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:23:20 GMT

In article <Aug.28.01.42.17.1992.25716@athos.rutgers.edu> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>Just by coincidence, they
>also remembered the theif on the cross who was saved prior to death and
>how he certainly could not have been baptized by immersion.  
.
.
.
>As Gaius
>looked through the portal of time, he was saddened by how the message of
>salvation through faith had been altered to include other things.  For
>some baptism, others works and deeds, etc.

I remember with sadness the teaching of a pastor in the Church of Christ
I attended in my teens (not the <church@city> Church of Christ, the 
other non-denomination of the same name).  He was a staunch immersionist,
and when asked about the thief on the cross, he answered that Jesus told
the man that he would be with Jesus in paradise, but that is not the same
thing as being saved.

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | It's hard to seize the
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | day when you must first
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | grapple with the morning.
From: stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:44:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>Is it necessary to be Christian to go to heaven?  Would it be possible just to
>worship God with no mention of Jesus, or does Jesus figure prominently and
>essentially into the equation?  Surely there were those people that were worthy
>of heaven before Jesus came, so can there not be such people today?

Jesus did say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No one comes to the 
Father but through Me."  I think that's figuring rather prominently.  What 
about people who lived before Jesus or people who haven't heard of him today?
I don't know, but I have heard of him and accepted him, and you have heard
of him and will be judged according to your choice.  What happens to others
is an interesting philosophical question, but I don't feel it has a lot of
relevance in my life right now.

>And also, what is with all of these denominations?  Do members of one
>denomination think that the members of others are totally wrong and will thus
>be denied access to heaven?  How important are the things that separate the
>denominations.  Could one get along without any of them?  That is, need a 
>Christian be a member or any organized religion at all?  If not, then why are
>so many people members of expensive religious organizations?  Would it not be
>best to worship privately, and to keep others' ideas away?

Most denominations will accept most others.  _Some_ Catholics think all
Protestants will go to Hell, and _some_ Protestants think all Catholics
will go to Hell, but these opinions are not widely held today.  I'm not
certain, but Mormons may not accept other Christian churches, and many 
Christians feel Mormons are not Christians.  But in general most 
denominations agree on most things (deity of Christ, resurrection, etc) 
and the differences are often in worship style or other minor things.  Sure,
you can be a Christian without belonging to a particular church, but it 
is often helpful to be with other Christians in order to share your faith
and grow through fellowship with others.

I hoped I helped.

(BTW, if you're interested, the Caltech Christian Fellowship meets Tuesday
nights once fall term starts, probably in Thomas or Winnett, and the grad
group is still meeting during the summer, though I don't know where.)

-- 
--Ron Stieger
  stieger@cco.caltech.edu
"Everybody wants a rock to wind a piece of string around."-They Might Be Giants
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:37:43 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

There is a tension between the concepts of who qualifies for salvation
and the purpose of evangelization.

If salvation is possible without having even heard the name "Jesus"
(as in the case of an eskimo 3000 years ago) then we ask what is
the purpose of evangelization and what is the need for doing it
with any urgency?

However, if we say that salvation is only open to those who are
exposed to Jesus (in their lifetimes) then what does happen to
the poor eskimo who lived 3000 years ago or the child born
today with a severe mental handicap?

Does anyone have the answer to this tension?

[Perhaps there's a bit more than a binary choice here.  That is,
(1) there may be advantages to knowing the truth other than
being saved from hell, and (2) it may be possible to be saved
without knowing the truth, but less likely.  --clh]
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Nicodemus (Was Re: Dry Bones)
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:36:07 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

Someone wrote:

>When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus and told him he must be born again he said
>'Are you Israels teacher and you do not understand these things ?'
>so I assume it must be somewhere in the old testament.  any ideas of what
>Jesus may have been refering to ?

He's refering to 

	Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will
	cleanse you from all your filthiness and from your idols.  Moreover,
	I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I
	will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of
	flesh.  And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk
	in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
	[Ezekiel 36:25-27 (NASB)]

As Israel's teacher, Nicodemus should have known from this passage that man
must "born of the Spirit" (John 3:8).  For all his study, Nic must have missed
this concept and couldn't believe it, which is why he said, "How can these
things be?" (John 3:9).

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage to a Catholic outside a Catholic Church
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:26:04 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

>[I thought the Catholic church recognized marriage between any
>baptized Christians, on the grounds that the ministers of the
>sacrament are the couple themselves.  Am I all wet, or is there a
>specific exception for a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic?  I would
>have thought that the marriage described would be valid but illicit.
>--clh]

   The Catholic Church recognizes the marriage of two baptized
Christians who are married according in their own church.  The key
here is being married according to their own faith.  Obviously, a
Catholic who marries outside the Church is not marrying according to
his own faith, so the marriage is not going to be valid.  Special
permission, however, can in certain circumstances be given to a
Catholic to marry in another church if marrying in the Catholic Church
causes serious enough problems (i.e. the mother of the bride says
she'll be darned if she's stepping foot inside a Catholic church).
But the couple still is required to see a priest first.

   In the case of Catholic-Orthodox marriages, the Catholic is allowed
to be married in the Orthdox Church because the Orthdox believe that
the priest, not the couple, brings about the sacramentality of
marriage.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: prayer
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:37:47 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Christopher (McGraw?) writes:

>I had one question in relation to the prayer posts.
>
>I have made lists of things to pray about, etc..
>and in starts to seem repetitive real quick!!!
>
>I end up saying the same basic lines about things day in and day
>out and they start to be more habit than anything else.
>
>My relationship with God seems kinda habitual.
>
>Suggestions???
>
>
>Chris

---- One thing that comes quickly to mid is to pray for someone other than
yourself, or pray specifically for things other than what concern you.  In
this way, you have no control over the things you are praying for, and you
get the satisfaction of knowing you helped pray for them when they clear
up, or whatever.  I DO NOT recommend prayer with a list, unless the list
is dynamic.  In other words, keep it growing, and keep pruning it so that
you are continually praying for different things.

The bible has several passages, and parables about stagnant prayer, and
how disgusting it is to God.  It is good to remind God of different
things, and it is GREAT to have a regular prayer life, but how boring and
incredibly annoying it must be to God to hear the same prayers over and
over and over and over again by the same people.

This is only my OPINION, take it or leave it.  I don't confess to be
absolutely true or right.  

God Bless,
Steve.Gross

--
   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: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re. money and mouths
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:37:34 GMT

In <Aug.30.02.57.35.1992.12599@athos.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu
(Darin Johnson) writes:

>>It's my view that the biblical injunctions regarding taking care of
>>the poor are intended to involve individuals, not the government.

>If enough individuals did, maybe there would be no need for the
>government to step in.  

In this day of financial disclosure I would dearly love someone to puncture
my cynicism:  those loudest in favor of having private charities handle
distribution of alms --- do they themselves gives proportionately more of
their substance to those charities than those favoring government aid to
the poor?

(Regarding the Aid to Families with Dependent Children --- it sure sounds
as though some people here wish to visit the sins of the parent(s) on the
child produced.)
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET

[I don't have data to answer this data directly.  However conservative
Christians do generally give significantly more money to their churches
than others.  --clh]
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:54:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

[This is a response to several postings on the question "what is a
Christian".  Enough things are quoted that it's hard to be sure if
this is a response to any specific question, or simply a general
contribution to the discussion.  However I suspect it's a response
to the following:

>>As extra credit, I'd be curious to hear what people here mean by "accept"
>>Jesus and "believe on" Jesus, since these terms are in danger of becoming
>>buzzwords without content.
--clh]

"That if thou shalt CONFESS with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
 BELIEVE IN THINE HEART that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
 shalt be saved."
"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
 confession is made unto salvation."
 (Romans 10:9-10 - Emphasis mine)
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
 deeds of the law." (Rom 3:28)
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Selecting Churches
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:56:13 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

>Now I am looking for a church whose doctrine agrees with my own beliefs. 

This seems to be why there are so many Protestant denominations, and the
number is growing.