HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Peter's Vision
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:23:18 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Aug.20.02.19.31.1992.21099@athos.rutgers.edu> Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu writes:
>In article <Aug.14.05.12.34.1992.629@athos.rutgers.edu>
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 
>>How does one explain that a jot and a few tittles were changed.
>>
>>eg. When Peter sees the visions of animals on a sheet and declares that
>>we are free to eat anything. Doesn't this change the dietry laws?
>>
>>I know it's only a minor tittle, but that's what's at issue here.
> 
>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.
> 
>"Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown

If you read the passages in the gospels on what causes a man to be 
clean or unclean, you will see a clear statement on the cause.  Note
especially Mark 7:19

Mark 7:17   After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his
    disciples asked him about this parable.
Mark 7:18   "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that
    enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
Mark 7:19   For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then
    out of his body."  (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Mark 7:20   He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him
Mark 7:21   For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts,
    sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mark 7:22   greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and
    folly.
Mark 7:23   All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'"

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: J.Hale@latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Problem of pain - summary & response
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:40:50 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

In article <Aug.20.01.46.58.1992.20282@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
	ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
> I don't know if anyone mentioned this already, but pain is in part due
> to the "hardness" of the universe. 
> 
> If I kick a brick, I feel pain and am made very aware that the brick is 
> just as real as my foot, and that my senses convey this reality to 
> me adequately. 

This only proves that your foot's reality [as determined by your senses] is 
of the same order as the brick. It doesn't does tell you anything else. So
for all your know [again as determined by your senses] they, and the pain
that ensues from the kicking could all share the same illusion.
> 
> In a soft universe I couldn't be sure of an external reality: if it
> was not as real as me, or obeyed my will, or whatever, I would have
> to convince myself it existed. This of course makes decisions about
> whether Jesus is God etc very difficult.
Perhaps we convince ourselves all the time of our "reality". In fact that may 
be what most of us soley seem to do. We expect, desire, want [choose what 
seems most appropriate] to prove the existance of this material world of
seperated bodies and minds and so we send out witnesses to this fact. "Ah ha,
I can touch you, I can move away from you, I can kill you, therefore I am
separate from you."
Many have often resorted to "explaining" the mystery of God and His works
by talking about another order of reality. Perhaps It is the only reality.

> But because the universe is hard, I don't need to wonder if it's real
> or not: all my knowledge is founded on that fact. And because I
> know the universe is real, the analogies God has placed in it
> to demonstrate himself are also knowable.
This is the problem. How do you know? If all the "senses" that tell you of
its reality are part and parcel of its reality then the argument becomes a
little circular to say the least ;-)
> 
> So the existence of physical pain in the universe needn't be seen as 
> an argument against God, but in fact is good in-as-far-as it is
> part of what lets us know. So we are better off having this type
> of pain: not having it would rob us of external reality.
Maybe not having it, i.e. not giving to its reality, will allow us to
come to the "other" reality, our true reality with God.
> 
Just some thoughts,

In Christ,

James
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences
Computing Unit			La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA
                                
James.Hale@Latrobe.Edu.Au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of God rests gently on forgiving eyes,
and everything they look on speaks of Him to the beholder.
He can see no evil, nothing in the world to fear,
and no one who is different from himself."
						Text, P 418
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: 32WENPW@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Knuth's book
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:24:48 GMT
Organization: Central Michigan University

I want to second MARK's review of Knuth's book on 3:16.  Some of us
consider hi m an exceptional mathematician (who happens to do good
computer science also, s igh) and his book is making the rounds of the
mathematicians.  The chair of my department mentioned it to me and
then a colleqgue at U. of Richmond had a post er of all the 3:16
drawings in his office.  It is a beautiful book.  It represe nts the
testimony a Christian layman should have: a lifetime of high standards
 in a secular field (math and cs) mixed with a strong Christian "walk".

                              ken

(Ken W. Smith, Math Dept., Central Michigan Univ.)
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: daily verse
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:20:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

[The following posting, which would seem harmless, creates a problem
in moderation for me.  I am not willing to accept an unlimited number
of daily Bible verses.  So far I have been getting them only from one
person.  Now I've got two people who want to contribute them, one of
whom is highly offended at the thought that I might not want to post
all of his contributions.  My current feeling is that given widespread
access to Bibles, it does not make sense to have more than one daily
verse.  So for the moment I plan to alternate among the contributors.
This of course is going to make it difficult for everyone -- both them
and me, since they will be writing twice as many postings as necessary
and I'll have to keep track of which one I did last.  Clearly I would
prefer it if only one person did this.  But things often do not go as
I would prefer.  --clh]


 ---------------------------------------------------
| DAILY THOUGHT FOR 08/14/92                        |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy |
|  mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and   |
|  night, that thou mayest observe to do according  |
|  to all that is written therein: for then thou    |
|  shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou     |
|  shalt have good success." (Joshua 1:8)           |
|===================================================|
|  "I have no greater joy than to hear that my      |
|   children walk in truth." (III John 4)   - Mark C|
 ---------------------------------------------------
From: kemery@dante.nmsu.edu (Kendal Emery)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Price of Sin
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:03:43 GMT

Due to recent events,  I have felt compelled to write this
short note to everyone on the net who might be wondering.

Paul tells us in Romans that "The wages of sin is death"
Nowhere is mentioned the "price of sin".

Mine has included

self-respect
community respect
possibly my job
and a lot of cash for various things.

I have also lost:
my ministry in the church for a time.

At any rate,  for those who might be thinking that a little bit
of sin won't hurt anyone.  Think again.  It can get expensive.

Paying The Price
Kendal
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
** kemery@dante.nmsu.edu  (Kendal Emery)                         **
**                                                               **
**      "If Jesus came back today...                             **
**         We'd try to book Him on the Oprah Winfry Show"        **
**                      Randy Stonehill..Great Big Stupid World. **
**                                                               **
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************

Thank you

Kendal
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist? And proof of existence!
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:35:52 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln


      The argument that everything must have a creator is an old one.  But even 
if we like its philosophy, so what?  As far as I can see, nothing at all follows
from that argument.  It says nothing about the creator other than the creation. 
No Bible, no Christianity, no other religion is logically demanded by it.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: You've GOTTA be kidding...
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:27:35 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:
> ...What do
>we gain by listening to the deceived "liberal Christians" out there explain

C. C. Keirsey responds:
>Why don't we prevent the decieved from broadcasting their garbage on the
>internet?  Maybe Pete can take up the job.
>Nothing personal against Pete.  I agree that sexual promiscuity isn't
>acceptable for Christians.  But, to "call a spade a spade," in Pete's
>words, his article started to sound like something from the pages of The
>Handmaid's Tale.

Oh!  The Handmaid's Tale.  That great piece of Christian literature.  
I agree that we should all find literature that we can use as a guide 
to live by.  Maybe the bible?    

Now that I have gotten the ridiculous bone out of my body.  Just let 
me say that I can sympathize greatly with Pete.  I really hope that 
the direction of opinions in this group does not represent 
Christianity as a whole.  Boy would we be in trouble then.  If Jesus 
came on the net and responded to our even seriously discussing 
multiple-sex, or same-sex marriages for Christians, I think he would 
say, "It's in the Book, Leviticus.  At least you're not lukewarm."

Ted

-- 
"Am I a black racist?  No!  Not unless you believe in the boogeyman.  
There is no such thing as a black racist." - Sistah Souljah
         -----krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu-----

[hmmm.... this could easily turn into a rehash of the homosexuality
discussion.  But I think Keirsey's objection was to the form and
attitude of the response, not the substance.  It was the stereotyping
of "deceived liberal Christians", and the idea that we shouldn't
bother listening.  --clh]
From: johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dunkelberg)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: use of force (was Re: Toronto legislation against Christians)
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:16:35 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>Jesus told us to `turn the other cheek' when we are physically attacked; but
>what about when _others_ are attacked?

jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward) writes:
>Sharing what the Spirit has revealed to me:
>*IF* God is dead, and stays out of the picture, then there are situations where
>there is no perfectly good choice - sometimes it is necessary to take an action
>that is evil in order to prevent a greater evil from happening.  If God is
>dead, then by might and power it is acceptable to take an action that is evil
>if it *appears* that, by committing that evil, the common good may be
>furthered.

 [A lot deleted]

Yes, I disagree.  The entirety of your argument is

a) The model whcih best fits the existances of evil/violence is the
	Watchmaker God / "Dead God" argument.

b) I cannot accept this model

c) therefore it is not true.

The problem of evil is a long-standing paradox for many religions.
How can an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, who is also all
that is good, allow evil to exist?

Surely not because of Lucifer/Satan/Shaitan.  For he was but an angel,
albeit "the most beautiful and powerful", yet not omnipotent?

This newsgroup might well be served by a good discussion of the existance
of evil, for it is one of the more powerful arguments against theism,
and Christianity in particular.

john

-- 
| John S. Dunkelberg Jr. |"The devil went down to georgia, 
| johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu   | an' he was lookin' for a soul to steal.
|------------------------| He was in a bind, he was way behind,
|The Charlie Daniels Band: and he was lookin' to make a deal..."


[I think this is a misreading of his argument.  He's saying that there
is a third choice other than letting someone do evil to the innocent,
and intervening with force.  That is taking action in faith --
intervening, but nonviolently.  The point about God being dead is that
the "lesser of two evils" models implicitly assumes that God will not
intervene -- it takes account only of the choices that are immediately
apparent.  Jonathan instead believes that if Christians take the path
of nonviolence, God will work through them to make other possiblities
appear.

This argument seems solidly based on the Sermon on the Mount and other
of Jesus' teachings.  I don't quite see where your critique fits in.

--clh]
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist?  And proof of existence!
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:11:05 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <Aug.11.02.47.01.1992.12777@aramis.rutgers.edu>  
stehman@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jeff Stehman) writes:
> >Matter itself is not the great first cause...
 
> I've heard this one from many, many people, and I've never understood  
it.
> Why are so many people capable of believing in a creator that has always
> existed, yet incapable of accepting that matter might have always  
existed?

In either case you are faced with a mystery.  I find the mystery of a  
uncreated God more exciting somehow than that of an uncreated universe.   
But that's not an argument.  I was reading Peter Kreeft's excellent  
summary of Aquinas the other day and St. Thomas adduced an interesting  
"proof" of the existence of God (I quote "proof" because I don't  
understand logic well enough to feel comfortable with it unquoted.)

I paraphrase from memory:

o Given infinite time, all possible configurations of things will occur.
o One possible configuration of things is that nothing exist.
o Having once occurred, nothing else could ever exist afterward.
o Things exist, therefore time and things had a beginning and are finite.

-------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                            rob@ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood St.                   Your basic human being
Lexington, MA  02173            is not such a hot item.
617/981-2575                      --Ben Stein's sister
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (8-19)
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:22:33 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Wednesday, August 19:

     Whatever we ask we receive from him, because we are observing his 
commands and are doing the things that are pleasing in his eyes.  
<1 John 3: 22>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (8-16)
Date: 17 Aug 92 06:57:15 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Sunday, August 16:

     I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the 
leveling instrument; and the hail must sweep away the refuge of a lie, 
and the waters themselves will flood out the very place of concealment.  
<Isaiah 28: 17>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: You've GOTTA be kidding...
Date: 17 Aug 92 06:06:25 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Aug.13.03.51.27.1992.13270@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> cole@maverick ( Cole Keirsey) writes:
>
>Why don't we prevent the decieved from broadcasting their garbage on the
>internet?  Maybe Pete can take up the job.  ...

>If the conservative Christians in the audience don't like this
>characterization, maybe they will consider applying the golden 
>rule before insulting liberal Christians. If there are Christians out
>there who advocate multiple partner "marriages," they certainly aren't
>representative of liberal Christians.

>Nothing personal against Pete.  I agree that sexual promiscuity isn't
>acceptable for Christians.  But, to "call a spade a spade," in Pete's
>words, his article started to sound like something from the pages of The
>Handmaid's Tale.

C.C., 
Let me begin by confessing a bit of ignorance in that I am unfamiliar
with The Handmaid's Tale.  Also, no offense intended to any one particular
group of believers, quite sincerely.
I used the phrase "liberal Christians" in response to the original
posting; the author made reference to a group of people called that.
I understood (wrongly, perhaps) that the author of the original call for
articles on the subject of polyamory (sic) was generally equating a
favorable attitude toward this with a particular bunch known as liberal
Christians.
I am not advocating orthodox censorship of internet. But I am saying this
when I use the phrase "let's call a spade a spade": it is not something
new, it is not something good or helpful, it is the same sexual adventurism
into sin and debauchery that has ruined human societies for thousands of
years and let's quit going along with the decieved by calling it some
great new name like "polyamory".
Lastly, C.C., I will add this: I really don't know of any such thing
as a "liberal Christian" or even a "conservative Christian". I know there
are those who follow the Master, and those who do not. (It's not mine to
judge, of course, either.) If a person is one of His, I offer my greetings,
and if not, I offer my hope that they will be some day soon.
							Pete
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: freedom of speech in the Church
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:43:49 GMT
Organization: my cat

In article <Aug.14.03.20.57.1992.28564@athos.rutgers.edu> conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes:
>At his audience on June 24, the Pope was giving a talk on Charism
>in the Church (part of a series of talks he has been giving on the
>mystery of the Church).  At the end, he suddenly veered off onto
>the following tangent on freedom of speech in the Church. ...
>
>"Criticism is useful in the community, which must always be reformed
>and must try to correct its own imperfections.  In many cases it helps
>the community to take a new step forward.  But if it comes from the
>Holy Spirit, criticism must be animated by the desire to advance in
>truth and love.  ...
>
>"If this is the profile of freedom of speech, we can say that there is
>no oppositiion between charism and institution, because it is the one
>Spirit who enlivens the Church with various charisms.  

This isn't really news; in the new (1983) Code of Canon Law [hasn't
everyone read it?  ;-)] , the Church affirmed this "freedom of speech":

Canon 212 sections 2-3:
"2.  Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially
their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
3.  They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their
knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their
views on matters which concern the good of the Church.  They have the right
also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so
they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence 
to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of
individuals."

This right to speak is not unlimited: one does not have the right to deny
Christian teaching or urge disobedience to Church discipline.  Section 1 of 
Canon 212 reads:

"1.  Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to 
show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, 
declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church."

The "prophetic" free speech the Pope is recognizing is not the newspaper
manifesto of dissenting theologians, nor the picket sign of demonstrators
against Christian morals.  It is in the constructive words of faithful, 
orthodox Catholics who give the pastors of the Church their ideas on how she 
can be more effective in her mission of teaching and sanctifying humanity.

---
Richard Chonak                              norris@athena.mit.edu/newz@wit.edu
                                                            amo missam latinam