HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Test of inerrancy: agreement
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:06:18 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:

>Perhaps, in addition to Creation Science, we need to establish the
>discipline of inerrantist biology to handle such biological dicta as the
>following from the "Bible as science text":
> 
>Leviticus 11:5 (RSV)   And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but
>does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 
> 
>Leviticus 11:6 (RSV)   And the hare, because it chews the cud but does
>not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 
> 
>I don't know about the rock badger, but rabbits and hares are not
>generally considered to be ruminants --- an obvious heresty and apostacy,
>apparently, to some of the people discussing the question here.
> 
>To my apostate and heretical mind, the widely differing inerrant readings
>of the inerrant Scriptures by sincere believers makes me doubt the basic 
>tenant necessary for the inerrantist camp:  that the Bible contains no 
>error as read by the individual believer.  If two sincere believers, in 
>reading the same scriptural text, can find messages at variance from
>each other, then at least one (if not both) messages must be in error.

Basically, both the 'Rock Badger' and 'Hare' have jaws that are in constant
motion, and appear to chew the cud.  Thus, the prohibition against eating
them is correct, since they do not really chew the cud, but only have their
mouths in motion.

There are other 'problems' too:

Similarly the bat is not a bird, but it is included in the list of 'flying 
things'.

Same for the 'four legged "insect"', when clearly we know them to have 6
legs.  But according to Strong's and the Hebrew text, they are simply
called creeping, flying things...not 'insects' and 'crawling on all fours'
could well be a euphamism...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558

[I think the word you want for "on all fours" is "idiom", not
"euphemism."  --clh]
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (8-25)
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:35:08 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Tuesday, August 25:

     Always [be] ready to make a defense before everyone that demands 
of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild 
temper and deep respect.  <1 Peter 3: 15>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: "Christian & Politics"/ Books to Read
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:52:20 GMT
Organization: FNAL

One of the best books I have read on politics was about the judical system.  I
forget the title but it will be easy to find at your library.  It was recently
(last couple of years) written by Bork.  Yes, Bork.  That fundamentalist who
was turned down by the liberal Senatorial committee for Supreme court nominee. 
He starts at the begining of the court and brings it to present times.  He
discusses at length the political side of the courts and how not only the
courts but also government has changed its world view/presuppositional base. 
This is very important because when you hear politions using "God" words, you
need to weigh them very carefully.

Also, a recently published book by a Christian insider, Charles Colson's
"Against the Night."  Easy reading but full of detail to the ins and out of
politics in Washington.  Also there are many warnings about Xians putting their
trust in governmental messiahs, both people and programs.  Like I said, its an
easy reader, something you should be able to finish in a couple of hours.
-Rex
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Qumran finding
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:35:00 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

[When reading this, please note that the information is from the
reviewer himself, *not* from the book being reviewed.  --clh]

From a review by Charles A. Coulombe of _The Gospel According to Jesus_         by Stephen Mitchell that just appeared in _New
Oxford Review_ (Sept 1992 p 29):

     The world of biblical criticism trembles on the threshold of
a _perestroika_ potentially more disruptive than that which ended
the Soviet empire.  Apparently, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan has found that
fragments of the Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Paul's epistles to
Timothy were discovered in Cave 7 at Qumran--thus definitively
dating these documents as having been written in the lifetime of
their traditionally named authors.  The research of the late Dead
Sea Scrolls expert Fr. Jean de Carmignac tends in the same
direction; when at last the Institut Catholique consents to its
publication, it will be quite an event.  Commenting on these
developments, Giuseppe Cardinal Saldanini said on January 16 of
this year that "this find...sustains the Christian stance that does
not separate the Christ of Faith from the historical Jesus.  What
it does is [affirm] that Jesus of Nazareth is none other than the
Christ of faith and the true Son of God." ...

(Coulombe does not provide further information on the Qumran                    developments, but rather uses them as a lead-in to his negative review
of the Mitchell book.)

-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+


[I find this quite a frustrating postings.  Nothing against Ken.  He's
giving us all the available information.  But there are all kinds of
obvious questions that would need to be answered before we could
evaluation the significance of claims like this.  It would certainly
be nice if Coulumbe would have chosen a method of publishing that gave
some of that information.  Does anybody else know more about any of
this?  --clh]
From: Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Peter's Vision
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:12:27 GMT

Approve takhristian@aramis.rutgers.edu

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
From: ww2@horse.ssc.gov (Wes Price)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Baptismal Hair-Splitting (Was Re: And what *is* a Christian?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:59:42 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

Mark Christensen (markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com) wrote:
: ...Unfortunately, Alex (or Billy...can't remember which one) was too proud
: to admit that this story of the saved gentiles really was as it appeared
: and tried reading some other interpretation to it to coincide with his
: views. 

(Sorry, I haven't the talent to continue this in the narrative style)

Well, I think your assumption that pride is the issue here is not really
valid; looking at the discussion prior to the story, I think each "side"
is genuinely concerned that the other may be committing an offense against
Christ due to their "misunderstanding".  Either that or *all* sides (yours
included, I might add) are pride-motivated.

Anyway -- even if baptism is not *essential* to salvation, there are a couple
of things I'd like to point out, here:
1)  The salvation of the thief on the cross doesn't seem to relate to this
    discussion: since "..all of us that were baptized into Christ Jesus
    were baptized into His death..." (Romans 6:3), it looks to me like
    *whatever* Christian value it might have now, it couldn't have had 
    until Christ had at least died (been raised, really).

2)  Even if baptism isn't "necessary for salvation", it does seem to be a
    built-in part of the Christian walk.  I mean, in Acts 8:36, 10:47,
    and 16:33, the *immediate* response of these people to the Word was
    baptism; they didn't put this witness/work/duty/honor (not even 
    Phillippian jailer, who was baptized in the middle of the night).

3)  I think we may all be using the wrong defintion of "necessary"; isn't
    everything that Christ expects of us necessary, now that we've sworn
    to serve Him in every aspect of our lives?  Doesn't it seem a little
    presumptuous of us to be saying "if you're not going to obey Christ
    because you agree with me, He isn't going to accept what you do"?

and finally,
4)  Isn't Christ going to forgive us the mistakes we make in carrying out His
    will?  Or is He going to say "well done, thou good and faithful -- wait
    a minute, it says here you weren't baptized...sorry, I'm afraid grace
    just wasn't designed to handle that contingency; down you go." Or worse
    still, "What?  You weren't baptized for the right reason?  Well, then,
    it doesn't count; go mingle with the rest of the goats."

Yes, I can argue both sides with some facility; and no, I haven't actually
committed myself to either position (well, I tried not to :-) ).

Trying to be more of a help than a hindrance,

ww2
--
Wes W. Price II
SSC Laboratory, Dallas TX
ww2@horse.ssc.gov
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:57:36 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>But if it goes to
>unmarried mothers who never were married and have no intention of
>getting married, I have to ask myself, ``Why am I paying for the
>consequences of moral decisions with which I disagree?''

Another reason people get cynical about politics - everyone wants it
to be black and white, when it isn't.  What about the single mother
whose husband has left her, or is a mother due to rape or incenst.
Should these women be "forced" to get married in order to receive
government aid?  And even if a single mothers condition is due to her
sin, who are we to judge her and deny compassion?

But that's the big secret the political parties are trying to hide
from us.  There isn't a clear answer to any of the issues raised.
Notice that "issues" is plural.  It is discouraging to hear people say
they will vote for a candidate because "they're against abortion" or
"she's a woman", as if these were the only issues considered.

>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.  

-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
  - Brought to you by the 'Elvis in 92' committee.
From: pialis@ecf.toronto.edu (PIALIS PETER)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Us Christians!
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:43:26 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

Peace to you!

	Why don't we christian, live a legendary life? 

	People may argue to prove God exists. Since God is mysterious,
it is hard to prove He exists.  Jesus himself came down to earth and
worked wonderful signs. Still may Jews oppose him. So the way God
judge us is not understandable to us humans. He is a living God and is
existing. Even so as people say there is no God, Why don't we live the
Christian life; be humble, loving, caring and giving charity.  When we
die, at least we will be the example for the non belivers, and even
without faith, they may follow our example. When they die, our soul
will be resting in peace:
		(1) Because if they have followed our example and if
God exists, His judgement will save their souls.
		(2) They will also be with us in eternal life.
		(3) Many more will also follow each others example.
"Thorugh one man, many shall be laid to rest."

							Peter
Pialis@ecf.toronto.edu
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:38:13 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Aug.26.02.18.00.1992.8027@athos.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:
>I would question the grounds of your identification of "the papacy" with the 
>"see of Peter". The bishop of Alexandria was called "pope" long before the 
>bishop of Rome was, and his title is still today "Pope and Patriarch of 
>Alexandria and All Africa". 

   "Pope" is only an _unofficial_ title for Peter's successor.  I
believe the title was conferred popularly many centuries ago, and
translates to a familiar term for father, i.e. "papa".  He has several
titles, but probably the most official title is "Bishop of Rome."  The
term "papacy" therefore comes from this unofficial title, but refers
to the special status we Catholics believe Peter held among the
Apostles.  This is evidenced, for one thing, by the Gospels, which
pretty much always referrered to the Apostles as, e.g. "Peter and the
disciples," etc..  The papacy itself is not geographically based on
the See of Rome, but rather the successor of Peter, wherever he is.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Clinton & Gore
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:45:03 GMT

stngiam@athena.mit.edu (Shih-Tung Ngiam) writes:
 
 >  If indeed he is a member of a Southern Baptist church, many of the
 >policies he espouses are contrary to the position of the leadership of
 >the Southern Baptist Convention.  And if that is the case, how has the
 >SBC reacted?  
 
One of the core disputes in the SBC now is whether the central organization
should have "control" or dictate to the member congregations or individuals.
Traditionally this has not been the case, so the SBC reaction is of limited
importance.
 
 
 >  Going back in time, President Carter described himself as a born-again
 >Christian, if my memory serves me right.  His policies would not have
 >been approved of by today's Fundamentalist Christians.
 
Yes, and IMHO they would have seen themselves embarrassed by the witness of
his actions.  I don't see them risking their lives trying to ensure free
elections in Central America, or spending long days framing houses.  I
didn't see them cheer when he proclaimed that U.S. policy would hinge on
other country's human rights practices, instead of tolerating any dictator
who said he was anti-Communist, a position that was widely ridiculed as 
"naive" and "unrealistic."  This focussing on a few pet "Christian" litmus
test issues and ignoring these other things reminds me of the Pharisitical
"straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."  I don't remember for sure
whether I ever heard Mr. Carter "describe himself as a born-again Christian",
but it's certainly obvious to me that the conduct of his life speaks volumes
more about his convictions than the pious lip-service that is traditionally
given by a great many other government officials.  Or retired Presidents.
From: keiner@earthview.cms.udel.edu (Louis Keiner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist?  And proof of existenc
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:36:57 GMT

In article 4903@athos.rutgers.edu, whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <Aug.26.02.26.19.1992.8323@athos.rutgers.edu>, altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>> In any system of a given complexity, the
>> information required to describe that complexity is many more orders of 
>> magnitude greater than the system itself. 
>
>This is a disproof by counter example . . .
>
>The descriptors for the Mandelbrot Set are *much* smaller than the Set
>itself.  The same is true for Julia Sets and many other mathematical
>constructs.
>
>	--Hal

In the case of the Mandelbrot Set I wonder if there needs to be more than
just the mathematical iteration formula. You need the rules of addition
and multiplication, and finally you need the concept of the space needed
to hold the set, in this case the complex plane.

In the same vein, I can see the universe formed and described by relatively
simple physical laws, but first there needs to be the formation of the
space-time in which they hold. THAT to me is the awe inspiring aspect of
creation.

Peace,
Louis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis E. Keiner - College of Marine Studies        "Let be damned for eternity
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716            only those who would make
keiner@earthview.cms.udel.edu                       themselves gods." Voltaire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: crs@milton.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:30:21 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

I guess I don't fit into the group called "Evangelical Christians", at 
least not by the general concensus of what that term means.  As a side
note, I am a Christian, and I try to be "evangelical" through my lifestyle
rather than by hanging out in malls and passing out biblical tracts, etc.
Language is rather funny, is it not?

Anyway, it seems to me that the prime difference between "Evangelicals"
and "Liberals" is not that of goals and objectives, but rather of the
methods used to accomplish them.  It is pretty much universally agreed
between Christians that we ought to help the sick, poor, and suffering.
The disagreement is about what the best way to do that is.

I know the moderator would prefer to steer clear of politics, but I need
to draw from that subject as an example.  Also, I am oversimplifying the
example tremendously, but I hope you see my point.

"Liberal" Christians, and to some extent the Democratic Party believe that
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is a desperately needed plug
to help stop the people below the poverty line ending up out on the street
homeless.  After all, women and children are the largest and fastest growing
segment of the homeless population.

"Evangelical" Christians, and to some extent the Republican Party believe
that AFDC is too often used as a crutch by those families who get it, and
far too often they simply stay at the poverty level, don't seek a job, and
just mooch off of society.  There has to be a better way, they think.

In either case, all parties (both political and philosophical) agree that
there is a problem and that something needs to be done about it.  The
disagreement is over the best method of managing the crisis.

As you can see, there is plenty of room for Christians on both sides of
the political aisle.  It seems to me that the "Evangelical" Christians have
gotten more press lately, starting with Pat Robertson's bid for the 
presidency in 1988.  That does not mean that all Christians agree with
his politics.  There are a large number of Christians who disagree with
him strongly about a number of issues.

****************************************************************************
Cliff Slaughterbeck           * 
Dept. of Physics, FM-15       *   Hey Matt!  The diffusion pump is full of
University of Washington      *   water again!
Seattle, WA 98195             *
****************************************************************************
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:19:21 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Aug.28.02.36.16.1992.286@athos.rutgers.edu> gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) writes:
>In reply to John Bullough's article, I have the following comments:
>
>It seems to me that those who want government social programs are
>trying to have it both ways.  They are saying that people have a moral
>obligation to help the poor -- ``Doesn't the government of any nation
>have a moral responsibility to care for its widows, orphans, sick,
>etc... Yes....''  At the same time, they (NOT John Bullough
>necessarily...) say that one must NOT bring up issues of personal
>moral accountability.
>
>For example, I would have no problem with Aid to Families with
>Dependent Children if it only went to widows.  But if it goes to
>unmarried mothers who never were married and have no intention of
>getting married, I have to ask myself, ``Why am I paying for the
>consequences of moral decisions with which I disagree?''  Should my
>tax money be spent encouraging lifestyles that I think are destructive
>to individuals and society?  ...

Here in a nutshell is the problem of using a formal instrument such as
government to do something which the people at large are already far
better equipped to do.  This also removes God from the process since
the charter of our land (and a large number of enemies) oppose using
governmental power to carry any sort of agenda which has as its 
underlying motive a "religious purpose".

The Bible has examples of the effects of large government on a people
and how the people in turn became embittered and cynical as the power
of the government was used to take more and more of their productivity
for various purposes.  A central tenet of conservatism is that
since government cannot produce anything but only take that which the
populace has already produced, it means that government in and of itself
has no wealth of its own.  So why not go where the wealth already is
and let the people (through various bodies such as the local Christian
church or social organizations privately founded) meet the problem
at the source?

The answer most socialists will give you is their low belief that anyone
on an individual level could ever be so motivated as to respond
enough.  This is clearly against what Jesus taught us.  So we must
be involved in different ways - one of which is to try and prevent the
triumph of an essentially anti-God philosophy of morality and state.
It is quite complex, and is a multi-faceted battle with roots below
the surface.

This is, I think, why so many Christians presently find themselves in
league with conservative politics in general; both oppose this disturbing
late-twentieth century trend albeit for different reasons.

						Pete