HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: allegra!lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:02:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

#From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
#The Vatican recently ruled that a husband hemophiliac who had contracted
#the HIV virus through bad blood must not use a condom.
#Speaking of family values!

You recently complained about people taking cheap shots at you for
saying you didn't care about the Bible.  You made a quite eloquent
defence and said something to the effect that what I do and say was
not an attack on you, so why do you attack me.  This sneering remark
undermines everything you said there.

I think that the Vatican is right on target on this point.  Any
morally responsible person infected with the HIV virus would not have
sex ("protected" or not) with someone who is not infected.  To do so
puts another person at grave risk, and hence is morally indefensible.

To do so with a partner who doesn't know about the infection involves
fraud and reckless endangerment.  Even if the partner does know, the
partner would be morally remiss to have sex--it would be like playing
Russian roulette.  The infected person would have the moral
responsibility to refrain for the same reason he/she would not help
the partner play Russian roulette.

The Roman Catholic Church is one of the few voices of sexual sanity in
our culture in speaking out against the myth of "safe sex".  A birth
control method with the failure rate of the condom is not something to
bet ones life on.  To encourage people to do so is to perpetuate a
cruel hoax.  The only result will be more deaths.  The AIDS activists
are right that there are those with blood on their hands as a result
of the many AIDS deaths--however, the blood is on their hands and the
hands of the safe sex advocates, not on the hands of the hierarchy of
the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church is speaking the truth in love.  I cannot
judge the motives of their opponants, but they are not speaking the
truth.  Their culpability can only be determined by God.  However,
those who know the truth must oppose them in love--for since God is
both Love and Truth, the truth can only be spoken in love.  The
unloving word may be factually accurate, but it cannot be the truth.
Similarly, the kindly intended untruth cannot be real love.  If the
two are sundered, a lie has been told, and we know who is the father
of lies.

I wish you the best--God's blessings.

Dan, once a Calvinist, now in C.S. Lewis' hall, headed for the
Orthodox Church, but having many warm feelings toward the Roman (as
opposed to American) Catholic Church

[Unfortunately Louie's information is too sketchy to be sure what
exactly the Vatican was responding to and what exactly was said.  Your
interpretation is that the use of condoms are not allowed in this case
because they don't provide enough protection.  I would have no problem
with that.  I read the original posting as implying something rather
different.  But it's clear that there's no enough information to make
a fair judgement.  --clh]
From: conan@beirut.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Apostle Thomas in India?
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:45:56 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Jan.8.00.56.46.1993.2667@farside.rutgers.edu> aslt@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

>Someone told me that Thomas the apostle (as in Doubting Thomas) ended up
>in India as part of his missionary effort, but couldn't point me to any
>evidence.  Anyone know anything about this?
>
>Thanks in advance.  E-mail replies welcome.
>

There is an indigenous Church in India which had been in existence
for a millenium when the Portugese arrived in 1500.  They have a 
firm tradition that they were founded by St. Thomas himself.  

I am not aware of the latest archeological evidence, but I recall that
there is good evidence that Christianity existed there before 300.
More speculatively, Stanley Wolpert in _A New History of India_
conjectures that there is some connection however, tenuous, between
the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism (with its notions of a savior-like
boddhavista) in the first century and Christianity.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Principles of Interpretation?
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:48:26 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <Jan.8.00.55.54.1993.2646@farside.rutgers.edu> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
>I'm looking for a short list (I'll go to the library later, thanks)
>of principles that folks have found useful for biblical interpretation.
>
>Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com

Dave, 

This may be overkill, but a new book by Immanuel Tov at Hebrew University,
"Text Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" outlines the subject at length, and
Tov is considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject.

Blessings,

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:01:56 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <Jan.11.03.33.32.1993.20992@geneva.rutgers.edu> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes:
>>The Vatican recently ruled that a husband hemophiliac who had contracted 
>>the HIV virus through bad blood must not use a condom.   

>Doesn't it also hold that if he is likely to infect her they should
>refrain from sex anyway?  If they have no sex they are guilty of no sin.
>If they have unprotected sex he is guilty of some kind of manslaughter or
>endangerment I suppose, though I don't know if we have a word for what she
>might be guilty of (recklessness?).  And if they do have sex with a condom
>they are guilty of frustrating the natural purpose of sex. 

I have been reading this thread for several days now and have been 
waiting for someone to lookup and post the scripture reference that 
answers part of this question.  It most definetly is sin to not have 
sex with your spouse.  The scripture goes something like, you shall 
not withold yourselves from each other.  Someone with a concordance 
can look it up.

Ted

-- 

[I suspect the passage you have in mind is 1 Cor 7:3.  It's not clear
to me how you intend to apply that to this situation.  Paul seems
concerned primarily about doing your duty towards your spouse.  That
is, the sin is not failing to have sex, but refusing your spouse.
While he advises against abstaining from sex for an extended period,
it is because of the dangers of temptation.  In a discussion like his,
where welfare of the spouse seems the primary consideration, it sees
that the fact that you have a STD such as AIDS might reasonably affect
the decision.  --clh]
From: balsamo@stargl.enet.dec.com (Antonio L. Balsamo (Save the wails))
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:52:47 GMT
Reply-To: balsamo@stargl.enet.dec.com (Antonio L. Balsamo (Save the wails))
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:49:52 GMT

   >>By our sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilt of killing the Son
   >>of God, Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse then killing and raping children.
   >>Yet we are "saveable".  If God can forgive us for what we did, surely he
   >>can forgive Mr. Dodd.
   >
   >This guilt of killing a person that may or may not have existed as a
   >godlike being is very much based on the faith. In other words those
   >who don't believe in this scenario don't either have any guilt.

       This is a little off the subject, but choosing not be believe in God or
   His Son Jesus Christ, will not excuse you on Judgment Day.  You may not
   "feel" guilt for killing the Son of God if you do not believe that He
   exist, but that will not excuse you from guilt IF He does in fact exist.

   >Moral values and teachings are relative, not absolute.

       Right, but truth is truth, for which we will be held accountable for
   whether we believe it or not.  Relative Truth is a fallacy.

   In Christ,
   Tony 
--

                  +--------------------------------------+
                  |   Name: Antonio L. Balsamo           |
                  |Company: Digital Equipment Corp.      |
                  |         Shrewsbury, Mass.            |
                  | Work #: (508) 841-2039               |
                  | E-mail: balsamo@stargl.enet.dec.com  |
                  +--------------------------------------+
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Principles of Interpretation?
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:48:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <Jan.8.00.55.54.1993.2646@farside.rutgers.edu> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
>For instance, the Reformers (I've noticed one can usually get OFM 
>to comment if one mentions the Reformers, and esp. Calvin Kline :-) )
>contributed the principle 'let Scripture interpret Scripture'
>which is nice, I suppose, but pragmatically not very useful in
>talking with skeptics; nor is the sense of such a principle
>immediately obvious (as a principle, it itself requires interpretation!)

Well, that's because it's a principle for interpreting scripture (figuring
out what it means), not convincing skeptics. It means that we should
look to other portions of scripture to elucidate scriptural statements.
For instance, the white stone of Revelation 2 probably has more to do with
other biblical white stones than greek practices of ostracism. We figure
out what a priest is by seeing what scripture describes a priest as, not
what our tradition or culture has understood it to be.

>So, what sort of principles are people aware of? What helps one
>determine, for instance, that verse A. ('women should cover
>their heads in church') is peripheral but verse B. ('in Jesus
>Christ there is neither male nor female') is crucial?
>

1) CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. (headcoverings seem to be indicated in
the text as being a perhiperal issue).

2) Clarity. This is somewhat subjective. But not all of scripture is easliy
understood. The reasoning involved in the headcovering passage is more
obscure. God knows this, so don't make a whole lot out of it.

3) Perspecuity. The main themes are there. If we find ourselves confused
by a text portion, interpret in the light of a related, more clear
passage. This is a big part of "scripture interprets scripture".

4) The odds are that current events have very little direct correlation to
the book of Revelation (IMHO).

5) seek application. Claiming to understand do not steal with no idea
of how it applies in a situation is erroneous. Scripture thoroughly
furnished for good works: actions.

6) The bible is literature. Very good literature. Treat it as such. Look
for themes, images, poetic structures (parallels, chiasms). Expect the
details to be relevant.

7) don't import foreign ideas into the text. Don't assume modern ideas
about equality underly the male female verse. Don't assume ones own sexist
prejudices are the root of the headcovering rule (it's a "sign of
authority" for one thing.)

Some of these are a bit vague. That's why rule 8 is to talk to others and
read other commentators and see where the church has stood on various
topics in the past. If you see something in a text noone has ever seen
beofre, you at least ought to look one more time.

paul duggan
From: mark.wuest@att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ?'s
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:47:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs - Red Hill

In article <Jan.7.01.27.14.1993.6107@geneva.rutgers.edu> shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
>1) The concept of eternity; I mean God has *always* existed. I find it
>   hard to imagine there being no beginning.

I'll leave the rest to others, but... If you read Hawkings' book ("A
Brief History of Time"), you'll note that time and space are as
interrelated as matter and energy. Though we've learned recently
how to convert matter to energy and back again, we've not figured
much out about the time thing EXCEPT the experiments where we've
actually altered the flow of time at high velocities.

The point is, time is as much a part of *creation* as are space, matter,
and energy. God is outside of creation (though he participates in it
at the very least by having a relationship with us humans), and therefore
not constrained by the concepts of time, space, matter, or energy.

One *could* state that *that* is what is meant in Genesis 1 - that
the "heavens" refers to space and "earth" refers to matter, but
*that* is a whole 'nuther discussion.

Is that worth $0.02?

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                              |     *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mdw@violin.att.com (Sun Mailtool Ok)    |
mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail)        |
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:11:56 GMT

Chetan Parikh quotes Abdu'l-Baha:
> ...  
> Man has not the right to take vengeance, 
> but the community has the right to punish the criminal; and 
> this punishment is intended to warn and to prevent so that no other 
> person will dare to commit a like crime. 
> ...


Justice should not be an ends in itself, justice should be
used to ensure a peaceful, free society.

When I discipline my kids it is because I want them to behave in
a certain way, not because there is some scale that must be
balanced. If their behavior improved with a look, a talking to,
a time-out, or if needed a spanking (which I rarely use) it would
make no difference. If a neighbor kid breaks my window, do I
go and break his window and feel satisfied? If his dad beats him
in front of me, am I satisfied? No, I want him to
fix my window. But even that's not what I really want. If every
morning he comes over and breaks my window, but then fixes it,
will I be satisified? No, I want him to stop breaking my window.
I don't care about justice, I want his behavior changed.

There is no cosmic equilibrium that needs
a punishment of a specific severity for each transgression, at
least none that we humans can understand or use. That is why
God says "Justice is mine." That is what Jesus was demonstrating
on the cross. What justice was that? He slaps us in the face 
and spits on our petty concepts of justice. 

So what is the point of having a concept of justice?
We need rules for society to function. We need definitions
of who owns what, what someone can or cannot do. We need 
assurances that people we come in contact with will follow
at least some rules so we can function and interact in a
reasonable way. As Christians we believe everyone is equal,
everyone should follow the same rules. Everyone following the
same rules is called justice. This justice is to help society
function. The punishments are specified to make sure we follow
the rules.

"An eye for an eye" was designed to stop people from poking
each others eyes out, not to make the whole world blind. 
Some crimes are so heinous that there is no way to compensate
its victims. So we feel that the collective psyche of society 
must be compensated with the suffering of the guilty. 
But I don't think that is real justice. Capital punishment
is society admitting it has failed. It has failed because it
cannot prevent such crimes and can only express its
outrage with more suffering.

Chris Mussack
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Reconstruction
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:08:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <Jan.6.01.41.47.1993.2675@geneva.rutgers.edu> piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) writes:
>In it I found a quote from Gary North out of Christian Reconstruction, vol
>XIV, no 3:
>    The collapse of Marxism is symptomatic of a far more crucial collapse.
>    Marxism's demise is the first stage of a much more significant
>    transformation: the collapse of Western humanist culture.
>
>I find this a very interesting statement, but there was no support for it
>in the book. I don't know Gary North nor Christian Reconstruction. I guess
>the latter is a magazine. Do you know either? Did you read the article? I
>am mostly interested in the reasoning behind the above statement.

I am somewhat familiar and find myself in a great deal of agreement with
Gary North and Christian Reconstruction. The title is that of a newsletter
he publishes, and refers to the "movement" know also as Dominion Theology,
or Theonomy. North runs Dominion Press, and the Institute For Christian
Economics, the publications of which are definitely *not* found in the
average Christian Bookstore.

I could go on, but to the matter of the quote. Based on my understanding
of North's position (and not this particular text), he would base his
statement thusly:

Marxism is the most consistent form of western humanism. Since it
is the most consistent ideology to deny the existence of God and
the particular truths/laws revealed in Christianity, it is the farthest
thing possible from truth, and therefore is inherently self-destructive.
Since we have witnessed it's demise, other, less consistent forms of
humanism will inexoribly follow in it's wake.

This is important for North because he believes on biblical grounds that
attempts to structure socisty that do not make explicit grounding in the
truth of scripture are doomed to collapse (in the sometimes very long
run). Christianity has the answers for all of life, and thus Christians'
political (but not only) duty is to reconstruct society along biblical
lines. He also believe that this will/must happen eventually, sice all
non-christian systems are inherently flawed.

I can refer you to other sources if you're interested.

paul duggan
pduggan@world.std.com
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:47:56 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <Jan.3.21.44.04.1993.28273@geneva.rutgers.edu> labson@borneo.corp.sg
i.com (Joel Labson) writes:
>I'd like some discussions on this....
>
>If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to
>us automatically without praying for it??????
>
>I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....??
>
>Any comments, agree,disagree,don't know,maybe ??????? - jrl

Some thoughts summarized from St. Thomas Aquinas:
There are three musty errors about praying. One is that God does not rule 
things, and that the prayer of petition is useless. A second is that all things
happen by fixed fate, and that consequently praying is a vain action. A third 
is that prayer attempts to make God change His providence ("change His mind") 
and is therefore foolish. We reject at one the first two of these errors as in 
manifest conflict with both reason and faith. As for the third, we say that we
pray not "to change God's mind", but to align ourselves with it. St. Gregory
says, "By asking, men may deserve to receive what almighty God from eternity
is disposed to give." Hence, it is right and reasonable to pray.

We can lawfully pray for temporal goods, so long as we do not attach to them 
inordinate importance, and make them the end-all and be-all of existence. For 
we may lawfully desire external goods, and what we lawfully desire, we may 
lawfully pray for. Hence, it is not wrong, but very right, to ask God for 
temporal favors.

When we pray we should ask for what we lawfully desire, and also for what we 
ought to desire. Now, we ought to desire grace, and salvation, and all good 
things for others as well as for ourselves. Hence, we should pray for others.

In short, prayer unites us with God's will. Also, when we ask God for good 
things, we are increasing within us the desire for what is good and holy.

The cause of prayer is charity (the grace, love, and friendship of God) which 
ought to be in us always. We should ceaselessly have the virtual or implied 
intention of doing all for the glory of God. In this sense, prayer should be 
continuous. Prayer, however, as actual petition to God cannot be continuous; we
have many other things to consume our time: we must eat, and sleep, and attend 
to daily tasks, and chat with friends, and travel, and do a hundred other 
things. Prayer as actual and explicit petition is possibloe at many hours of 
the day; it is well that there be a few stated times for it.

Prayer raises the mind adoringly to God, and begs His blessings, and, with 
appreciative or thankful spirit, it implored divine mercy on sinful man. Hence,
prayer has parts: adoration, petition, thanksgiving, penitentional 
supplication.
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Pacifism
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:50:04 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <Jan.8.00.58.08.1993.2739@farside.rutgers.edu> rxm@vortex (Robert I McLachlan) writes:
>So here's another question which is maybe standard but I haven't heard it:
>how can the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" be consistent with anything
>but a pacifist position? It sounds pretty explicit to me.
>
>Doctrines, beliefs, anecdotes welcome.
>
>Robert McLachlan


The two most convincing summaries I've read for each side of the
argument are by Tony Campolo in "20 Hot Potatos Christians are Afraid
to Touch" and CS Lewis - forget which essay it was in.

Campolo's view is that a Christian may not do anything Jesus would not
have done.  Would Jesus drop bombs on civilian targets, would Jesus
kill someone for being born in a different country, etc.  His answer
is no, and leads him to argue for pacifism.

Lewis on the other hand, argues that two soldiers in opposing armies
need not feel any animosity towards eachother.  He served in the
trenches in WW1, and imagined that if he and a young German had
managed simultaneously to kill each other, they would have shaken
hands and laughed about it.  He also said, that rather than refuse to
serve, Christians should serve in the forces, but refuse to take part
in actions that were directed against non-military targets.

Alison