HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:36:21 GMT
Reply-To: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Organization: Paging, Wireless Data Group of Motorola, Inc.

In article <Jan.20.00.08.43.1993.778@geneva.rutgers.edu>, 
MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> I agree with Mr. Baskette in that some of the methods science uses can
> resemble the methods religions use. However, one main difference yet
> exists. Science bases itself in reality, as opposed to religion.
> Religious people still use science to get by in reality; religion,
> on the other hand, is not required in science. And that is the problem
> to me as an unbeliever. Religion seems to me to be an additional set
> of beliefs which seem unnecessary. I can acknowledge that I have beliefs
> which I use to function. But I don't see the relevance of religion.
> 
> Martin Schulte

   Nor do I see any sense in maintaining beliefs that prove false.  I just 
don't see the problem of agreeing with both science and religion.  Both 
science and religion are based in reality!
   I rather think God's biggest problem is with "religion", not science.  No 
doubt Galileo was banished to hell by some wonderful Bible scholars, where 
are those arguments today?  The Bible did not change, only our recognition of 
what it said - it did not say the earth is the center of the universe!  That 
continues today.  I would go so far as to say that in the middle ages, the 
church persecuted God.
   Science is not without its errors trying to become the more influential.  
Some scientst (similar to the wonderful Bible scholars above) created a 
missing link "find" to fill in something he thought would prove something, it 
is beyond me just what that was.  I had a biology teacher (name witheld, 9th 
grade in San Carlos, CA) who stated in class that there was no God involved 
in creation.
   My faith in God is enhanced by science, I do not consider any scientific 
discovery to be a retreat for my faith/religion.
   If I drop an anvil over my foot I "believe" it will fall, and I move my 
foot!  It is hard to ignore a physical sensitivity.  We also have similar 
spiritual sensitivities, with resulting sureness.  Why should that be in 
conflict with science?

|  Rick Granberry                          Phone (407) 364-2619 |
|  Motorola Email CRG001             rick_granberry@pts.mot.com |
|  I think we're all Bozos on this Bus!                uh, Clem |
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT prophecy about praying for CLINTON
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:34:02 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <Jan.26.04.45.08.1993.15077@athos.rutgers.edu> ogden_jon@macmail1.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:

>So far Slick Willy has failed miserably on the abortion count.  However, I did
>hear some interesting "scuttle-but" about some things he has done.  I
>understand that a few weeks ago, Mr. Clinton met with several influential
>church leaders including Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church and Dr.
>Robert Schuller among others.  From what I understand (I have heard this second
>or third hand) Bill Clinton asked the men to pray for him and also asked them
>for what their concerns, etc. were.  Reportedly the President is not a
>Christian in the New Testament sense, but he is someone who is spiritually
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>open.  

This is outrageous.  So Bill Clinton doesn't agree with one politically--
dismiss his being a Christian!  Has Bill Clinton ever proclaimed that
he is not one?  If he hasn't, we must give him the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever one may think of President Clinton's performance so far, I
believe that he is not consciously embracing what he knows to be evil,
unlike Wesley Dodd who stated that he would still kill children were he 
ever to be free.  

To cast aspersions at someone for not being a "New Testament Christian"
so that one can dismiss the other's beliefs is not a very Christian
attitude.  In fact, this is coming very close to a modern day version
of the religion of the Pharisees.

Yours in Christ
David Shao
From: hudson (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: IMPORTANT prophecy about praying for CLINTON
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:49:13 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Recently, I read a newsletter written by Paul Cain and Rick Joyner.  
I hope to later write out some of the highlights of the letter later in
more detail.  
The name of the newsletter is the "Morning Star Prophetic Bulletin."

On November 2nd, God gave Paul Cain a prophetic dream about Bill Clinton.
As a sign of the accuracy of the vision, God told Paul Cain the headlines
that Clinton would win the election and gave him five of the headlines that
would appear in specific papers accross the US the day after the election.
Each of the headlines had prophetic significance.

God showed Cain that what a lot of people had percieved as "waffling on the
issues" was really Clinton's desire to be open and fair.  God said that
Clinton was a "listener."  This is a sign of humility.

Also, God showed Paul Cain that _if the church will pray_ God will put His
Spirit on Clinton and change him into a new man.  He will give Bill Clinton
the Holy Spirit to rule this country.

Like Solomon, Clinton will call out to God for wisdom.  Just as Solomon's
first test came over the issue of life, this will also be one of Clinton's
major issues, not only abortion, but also euthenasia.  If we will pray for it,
God will give Bill Clinton His wisdom to rule the country.

The newsletter also warns about the spirit of intolerance that has infected
many right wing Christians.  Though they may be fighting for just causes,
many have allowed a self-righteousness and hatred to enter their hearts.
If it continues, God will set His face against it.  We need to stop complaining
and pray for Bill Clinton.

Those are a few of the ideas expressed in the letter.  I hope to send some more
later.

God bless, and pray for the President,

Link Hudson.
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:38:35 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <Jan.19.01.02.48.1993.2247@farside.rutgers.edu> chuck@cygnus.eid.anl.gov (Charles Cilek) writes:

>The Handmaid's Tale is the story of the Republic of Giliad
>as seen through the eyes of one of the handmaids.  I would 
>recommend it, at least to see why some people are freightnened
>of the rise of right wing fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, Charles, this is how many Christians are being portrayed
this day.  We are seen as a dangerous force motivated by hatred and
violence that has someone come to power in the last few decades and
politically speaking are known as right wing fundamentalists.  Sounds
pretty scary, huh.  

The point I would like to contribute to this thread is that this 
portrayal is not accurate.  The values that many believers are
upholding and getting politically involved for are ones that prior
to the sixties were common place.  They are values that have been
the backbone of our country from the beginning.  

What has happened is that there has been a divergence from these
morals in the attitude of part of society.  Those things which 
groups like Pat Robertson are involved in are ones that were
upheld by my grandparents (who weren't even devout believers) and
that generation.

Therefore, those values that people like Brian are worried about
losing are ones that came about through the social revolution
that started in the sixties.  It has been this revolution that has
been trying to change the norm of America's heart.  People like me
who have been changed by the Lord see the value and purity of the
prior morals to both desirable and beneficial to society.

Thus when you look at it this way, liberalism is the one on the
offensive seeking change whereas believers and others who hold
to Biblical principles are on the defense to keep what has been
entrusted to us from the beginning.

But to the generation that grew up in the sixties and beyond, this
new liberal way seems the norm and thus groups like Pat Robertson
seem radical and offensive, whereas from a historic viewpoint, the
opposite is true.

What do we really want.  We want God to be in our society.  We want
the freedom to acknowledge Him without those rights being threatened.
It is not a movement of violence, hate, and force, but one of peace,
love, and respect.

God bless you and keep you.  In Christ,

-- 
John Emery			
emery@tc.fluke.COM
From: ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Carl T. Donath)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Movement for the Dsyfunctional
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:21:02 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University

In article <Jan.25.00.39.34.1993.4514@athos.rutgers.edu> ap932@cleveland.freenet.edu (Larry Cuy) writes:

   It continues to amaze me how many dsyfunctional people are 
   attracted to the new Christian movement.  
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm a little unclear here: what do you mean (as opposed to the "old"
Christian movement)?


--
  __________/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu  Carl T Donath \________________
 / Why do people assume that this is the first time things have ever     \
/ been this way and things will stay this way forever?                    \
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Earning salvation?
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:53:37 GMT

Marty Helgesen writes:
> While tracing back a thread on Dodd and Gandhi I noticed the follow-
> ing statement that I had missed before:  "Maybe this is what the
> Protestants mean when they say no one earns salvation."

That was written by me.

> It is not just Protestants who say no one earns salvation.  Catho-
> lics, too, believe that no one can earn salvation, and I assume that
> Orthodox Christians believe it as well.

This is a subtle point that is lost on me.

We earn heaven in the sense that what I do determines if I go or
not. We don't earn heaven in the sense that nothing I do
gives me the right to demand heaven.

For example:
I earned a college degree in 1980. I have some friends whose
parents paid their way, did they earn their diplomas? I paid my
own way through college. However, I received about a third of
my money through scholarships. However, I earned those scholarships
by doing well in high school and on entrance tests. However, I
had a family that supported my desire for education and encouraged
me. But at least I earned the money. However, I got jobs through
my older brother and through friends that allowed me to earn the
money. But at least I sat through the classes and did the work
and passed the tests. However, I was born with a brain that
allowed me to understand the concepts being taught. Some people 
would never have passed my courses no matter how hard they
tried. However, some people with brains as smart as mine spent 
all day getting stoned and fried their brains, which I didn't do. 
However, however, however, etc.

So, I earned my degree in the sense that I put in the work and
used the talents that God gave me to get the degree. However,
everything that I have, including my very life, including that I 
had parents who allowed me to live at home in the summer while 
I worked, the fact that I wasn't paralyzed in a car crash, etc., 
all this was given to me. So I didn't really earn my degree.

That's how I see the "controversy" of grace and works. I need both.
The Bible mentions both as necessary. Our human
logic says they contradict, but God's logic doesn't depend on
human logic. The Bible says we should accept God's grace, but
it also says keep working and growing in love and understanding. 
Even the people from the street who got invited to the wedding 
had to put on wedding clothes.

When I feel smug and self-sufficient, I need to remember God's 
grace. When I feel lazy and satisified, I need to remember to
put my faith into action. 

If I read the directions to a friend's house, sometimes it says
turn left, sometimes it says turn right. Some people read where
it says turn left, crank the wheel all the way over, and floor it.
Trouble is you go around in circles.

So that's how I see it. Where am I wrong?

Chris Mussack
From: pages!bwebster@uunet.uu.net (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Missions
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:49:20 GMT
Reply-To: pages!bwebster@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Pages Software Inc.

In article <Jan.22.03.56.03.1993.6136@athos.rutgers.edu> jfc@nic.cerf.net (Co  
Ho) writes:
> - While it's true that America needs Christ too, it's harder to reach-out
> to Americans since there are too many obstacles too overcome, namely
> materialism and skepticism.  People in the 3rd world coutry, they are more
> "child-like" therefore, it's easier for them to discover faith!

Having done missionary work in both Central America (Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa  
Rica, Panama) and in the USA, I'd have to say that your statement doesn't match  
my experience. While cultural differences produced different barriers to faith,  
the obstacles were still there in both places, as was acceptance. The image of  
"simpler, child-like people" in "3rd world countries" (itself an outdated term)  
is a false, misleading stereotype.  ..bruce..
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: address of jailed priest
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:49:52 GMT
Organization: l'organisation, c'est moi

A few days ago, I promised to provide the address of Fr. Tom Carleton,
the priest recently sentenced for participating in the blockade of a
Boston abortion mill.

Fr. Carleton's address is:
  Rev. R. Thomas Carleton
  Billerica House of Correction
  PO Box 565
  Billerica, MA  01821

On January 13, Fr. Carleton was sentenced to 2 1/2 years for criminal
contempt, was taken into custody, and began a 30-day water fast, in
which his prayer intention is for the lives of unborn children
endangered by abortion.  He has asked not to see any visitors for the
duration of the fast.

-- 
Richard Chonak, norris@mit.edu 
250,000 marched for life in DC on Friday, Jan 22.
From: jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:53:48 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <Jan.25.00.47.05.1993.4618@athos.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>John Nielsen writes:
>
>>Pratically everyone in Europe at one time believed the earth was flat,
>>that does not make it flat. Christianity was a *very* powerful force
>>in the middle ages, it is not surprising that people accepted it.
>
>If the author intends this to imply that in the middle ages it was thought
>that the earth was flat, he is totally wrong.  C.S. Lewis, who in this
>matter IS an authority, being a medievalist, skewers this completey in
>_Miracles_, simply by citing all the ancient writings (Ptolemy, most
>prominently) which were believed by all educated people of the time.
>Everybody knew the world was round and that the earth was basically
>pointlike in comparison to the rest of the universe-- Ptolemy said so.

If this is the case, then why were people concerned about sailing
over the edge of the world??

I know that it was figured out before that the earth was not flat. But,
you are contending that this was not only accepted by ALL educated
people but it was also common knowledge? 

Where in the book does he say this? Is he saying EVERYONE knew that
the earth was a sphere or is he saying that some people read
Ptolemy and believed him? 

And, again, what about all those sailors who were concerned about
sailing over the edge of the world?

john
-- 
John Nielsen   MAGNUS Consultant            ______   ______   __  __	
jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu         /\  __ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
                                           \ \ \/\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \
  Back off man, I'm a Scientist!            \ \_____\\/\_____\\ \_____\
From: eng10205@nusunix1.nus.sg (LING SIEW WEE)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Online bible
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:18:18 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Arthur T. Manning (manning@halley.est.3m.com) wrote:
: After posting the request, I found a reference to what I am looking for.
: The online bible is available via anonymous ftp from 
: wuarchive.wustl.edu    /doc/bible/ibm-pc  and /doc/bible/mac
: 
: I'm amazed that this stuff is FREE!!!!

I managed to find the online bible in there. But there are so many files
to get!! I have to transfer those files to my own personal network
directory (which is limited to 1MB), before I can copy to
diskettes or transfer back to home through modem. By the look of those
files, I think I need to spend the whole day in school to transfer and
copy and delete... Do anyone has a better method of ftp??

Wilfred Ling
From: daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A beginner's question
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:30:26 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

Rosario DSouza, J writes:

>Some people tell me that some parts of the Bible should be taken
>literally, and some parts should not. My question is: how does one
>discern which parts are to be taken literally and which should not?

Prayer, love, compassion, thought, open-mind-ness, and realization
that you have prejudice and dogmatic rules in you that need to be found
and seriously looked at - as do we all.

And it isn't easy - but its very rewarding.

Dave

--- daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------
Dave Stow, Comp. Dept. SECAMS, Lancaster University, Lancs, LA1 4YL, UK
     Tel: +44 (524) 65201 ext. 3142           Fax: +44 524 381707
--------------------------------------------- B5(6.5) f- t- g+ k+ s+ e r p ----
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:47:35 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

>If God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does He allow sufferings
>to exist? 

I've been thinking, and maybe I should rather recommend you to first
read the book of Job.

Just a thought:  God will one day judge the world. Evil is not permitted,
and because it isn't punished now, it will be. Justice will be done.

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
      E-MAIL: david-s@hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: *   help    *
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:49:52 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I am trying to discuss with someone the idea of the historicity of the gospels
and the trustableness(?) of Christianity in general.  He wants to know why he 
should accept the miracle accounts and the general historicity of the New 
Testament and not accept miracle accounts in other books and/or religions.  If
you can help, thank you, and if you want me to explain further, I would be 
happy to do so.

Thanks

MAC
From: cnews@umr.edu (UMR Usenet News Post)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:39:48 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:

>If God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does He allow sufferings
>to exist?  Why did He create humankind with the propensity for
>Greed, Hatred and Delusions and then allow us to murder and harm
>each other?


Simple?  I would recommend the book "The Problem of Pain"
by C.S. Lewis.
From: JEFF@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jeff Brooks)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about Joseph
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:31:13 GMT

In article <Jan.25.00.29.02.1993.4312@athos.rutgers.edu>, you say:
>
>I have always believed that Jesus did have brothers and sisters,
>particularly in light of Mark 6:2,3.  I also often wondered what happened
>to them and why Jesus did not entrust Mary to one of them.  Originally
>I thought maybe they had died before Jesus but then I found that many
>scholars believe that the NT books of James & Jude were written by
>Jesus's brothers.  After re-reading John, I concluded that Jesus's
>brothers were not present at the crucifiction.  John was there, was a
>close friend of Jesus, and was willing to care for Mary.

If the "brothers of Jesus" were his younger brothers, one would still
have to explaing the SHOCKING (at the time) lack of respect shown
when these younger brothers advised their older brother what to do!
Based as much on that as on the Passion scene, I have to conclude that
the brothers of Jesus were, strictly speaking, his cousins or other,
older male relatives.

   Jeff
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about Joseph
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:49:09 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <Jan.26.03.22.42.1993.13962@athos.rutgers.edu> poram%mlsma@att.att.com writes:

>I also find it highly probably that Joseph was a lot older than
>Mary, and died at some time during Jesus' teens or twenties


I see no need to assume that Joseph was much older than Mary in
order for her to be a widow at Jesus' death.  Life was rather harsh
back then.  Illness and injury (with its accompanying infection)
which we routinely cure today was often life-threatening without 
our modern medicine.  (With the medical knowledge of 2000 years 
ago I likely would have  died of appendicitis before age 20.)  
Joseph could easily have died of disease or an accident any time 
after the return from Egypt.

If Jesus did indeed have half-brothers, why did they not care for
Mary after Jesus' death?  Obviously those who believe in Mary's
perpetual virginity will say that they were cousins or offspring of
Joseph through a prior wife.  I will not go into the linguistic
arguments for and against this (and am not qualified to do so).
However I don't see this as necessary either.  It is well known that
Jesus' brothers (or cousins if you prefer) did not accept him for
what he claimed he was (though at least some were apparently
converted later).  Mary would be the one person who absolutely
*knew* that Jesus was the Son of God.  As such she might  not feel 
comfortable living with a son (or nephew) who rejected Jesus' 
mission and divine sonship.  Therefore Jesus provided that she 
live with someone who did believe.
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Online bible
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:20:19 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

>[As far as I can tell -- and we've been looking for several years --
>the only version that can be freely FTP'ed is the King James.

This may or may not be of general interest, but when I FTP'ed OLB 6.00
from wuarchive.wustl.edu (/doc/bible) it included the RSV combined with
the AV.  I don't know if it is still there or not.

[It's there.  I just looked.  Interesting.  I don't have time to
look at it now, but when I get a chance I'll put it into the
online search system in info.rutgers.edu.  --clh]