HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ajackson@csr.uvic.ca (Ann  Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: On judging
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:19:54 GMT

In article <Aug.11.02.44.35.1992.12723@aramis.rutgers.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <Aug.10.00.59.14.1992.6255@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> Louie Crew <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu> writes:
>>... God did not come to set captives free to cower before 
>>every neighborhood gossip!    
>
>Good point.  But at the same time, on the other side of the coin, our
>liberty at some times has to be judged by another man's conscience,
>to paraphrase Paul's question in I Corinthians 10.  He even wrote that
>he would not eat meat or drink wine if it caused a brother to stumble,
>be offended, or be made weak.  While it is always possbile to unwillingly
>and unwittingly offend the weakest conscience, we should not do so willingly.

A couple of people have mentioned this passage to me in email also.
This makes it seem worth pointing out that I think it fundamentally inapplicable
to the situation originally described (friendships between adults).

Paul talks here about not upsetting and perhaps injuring our brothers and
sisters by the freedom we take in what we eat and drink. I could readily
see applications of this principle to other things we consume, such as
entertainment. C.S. Lewis suggests that tensions between "high" and "low"
preferences in worship styles could be transformed if the adherents of the
different practices attempted to care for each other's consciences in this way.

However I think _relationships_ are a very different matter.
Can we really imagine that Jesus or St. Paul would recommend that anyone
avoid extending the hand of friendship to another because a brother or sister
might imagine ill of the association? As Jonathan Hayward eloquently pointed
out in a post on this thread, friendship is one of God's good gifts. Often it
is a vital source of support in facing the storms of life or growing in faith.
Love always involves risk: we make ourselves vulnerable to the other person.
Sexual attraction is just one of the risks that we face in trying to love a
neighbour. I believe Jesus calls us to go out and face those risks, trusting
in his power to help us weather them, not to hide in the security of our own
homes and family relationships, venturing out only in large enough groups that
the discussion is sure to stay safely "public" and away from the deep pains and
joys and questions of our neighbours.

Finally, in <Aug.10.02.28.59.1992.14438@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward) said:
>Do good.  Walk in the light.  If someone misinterprets what you are doing, then
>don't stop doing the good that you are doing - instead, correct the
>misinterpretation.

Right, where possible. But sometimes it's not possible to correct a
misinterpretation without betraying a confidence. People may not want to share
with the whole world information like "Oh, we're not spending all this time
together for _fun_. We're encouraging each other in our mutual struggle with
alcoholism." (This is not to say that fun isn't a good enough reason by itself).

Ann Jackson
From: rp@sequent.com (Roger Perrin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: What is essential ?
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:09:30 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

I'm a long time convert to the LDS faith with a previous background
of nearly zero formal religious affiliation.  A few years ago,
during a discussion with a friend, I was challenged that I needed
broaden my perspective, and in particular that I needed to
"understand what traditional Christianity believes about God and
salvation".

I'm not a scholar and my approach has been pretty haphazard. I've done
some reading, but my available reading time is limited so progress
against the huge bibliography of literature is slow.  I've tried to
talk to relatives, co-workers, etc, who are willing to explain their
beliefs. I've recently started reading this group, and it seems like
a source of plenty of input. I've read through most of the articles
in the FAQ.  

In discussions and reading I have come across allusions to the
notion of "essential beliefs", but it has usually been to say 
that a particular subject is "interesting but not essential".
So, what *is* essential Christian belief about God and salvation ?
I think the challenge given to me comes down to this question of
what is "essential".   

There is a pretty broad range of points of view represented in this
group, so I don't expect there to be one exact answer worded in a 
way which satisfies everyone. I'd like to read posts or email from
anyone who can take the time to respond. 

Roger Perrin.
Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
internet: rp@sequent.com
--
From: jeffries@iastate.edu (Anthony G Jeffries)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ARE THERE ANY CHRISTIAN GIFS OUT THERE?
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:28:53 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

Just thought I would add this...

There are also Christian Contemporary Music (read: Christian Rock, generally)
gifs on cs.uwp.edu.  I don't remember the directory, except that they're
in a subdirectory in the music directory...something like /music/pictures/
christian.

-- 
Anthony Glen Jeffries N0NRO               |------------------------|
N0NRO@N0AN.IA.USA.NA  (packet--ham radio) |-Iowa State University--|
jeffries@iastate.edu                      |-------Ames, Iowa-------|
tabl4@isuvax.iastate.edu                  |------------------------|
From: psburns@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:30:55 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <Aug.16.01.57.16.1992.1531@athos.rutgers.edu>, azamora@cs.indiana.edu writes...
>In article <Aug.14.05.12.20.1992.607@athos.rutgers.edu> smayo@wang.com (Scott  
>Mayo) writes:
>> What is a Christian? What does the term mean? I think I have a pretty good
>> idea, but in discussions with non-Christians it has become apparent
>> that the definition I thought was universal and accepted by everyone
>> is now in fact open to question, at least by these non-Christians.
> 
>> I have always believed that a Christian is a person who has taken Jesus as
>> his personal saviour. 
> 
> 
>The problem with characterizing Christians this way is that, especially among  
>non-Christians, it is hard to tell what different people mean by "accepting  
>Jesus as personal saviour."  Another way I've heard this this question phrased  
>is "What must you believe to be a Christian?".  I think the Nicene Creed and  
>Apostle's Creed do a good job of summing up the fundamental beliefs of  
>Christianity.  The pastor of a friend of mine has said, "When someone asks you  
>what Christians believe, you should recite the Apostle's Creed."
> 
>Tony

The problem with this is that even Satan believes what is stated in the 
creed, i.e. that God is creator, the son Jesus became man, died and rose 
again, the Holy Spirit is indwelt in the church as "helper", etc.  Belief 
in this certainly doesn't make Satan a christian.  It no more makes a human 
being a christian. 

"Accepting Jesus as Savior" means accepting his death and resurrection as 
complete payment for our sin stained nature, much as we would accept a gift 
freely given to us from anyone.  No strings attached.  Appreciation and 
gratefullness is shown in devotion, willingness to please, and recognition 
that there is nothing required to "earn" the gift.  




Maureen
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:48:04 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Aug.11.01.57.32.1992.10396@aramis.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

>David Cruz-Uribe wrote about RC teachings on various kinds of Infallibility,
>and said:
>
>> The technical term "ordinary and universal magisterium" refers to the
>> ability of the all the bishops to collectively teach infallibly.  This was
>> taught by Vatican I and II.
>
>What does it mean, exactly, for "all the bishops to collectively teach"
>something?

This, if my sources are correct, is an open question in need of 
refinement.  One way for all bishops to teach collectively is in an
ecumenical council.  However, bishops can theoretically all teach
something without coming together in a council.  I wish I had an
example from history, but I don't have a good one.  However, I 
strongly suspect that anyone familiar with the history of doctrine
can come up with something which is universally held but was never
part of the canons of a council.

>In particular, Christians of all flavors tolerated slavery for many centuries;
>John Paul II recently apologised for the RCC's participation in the slave
>trade.  But while it was going on, I can't think of anybody who spoke out
>against it.  It seems that, at least through silence (and possibly actively),
>"all the bishops" were collectively teaching that dealing in lives as property
>was morally acceptable for Christians.

I am less sure of this.  There are several examples of priests and
missionaries denouncing the slave trade in Latin America; some of these
may have had the support of their bishops.  The 1854 American Council
of Baltimore was deeply divided on this issue--though whether from
deeply held feelings or not I don't know.  A pope prior to this
council (possibly Pius IX) had denounced the slave trade.  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 :-).

>
>This bothers me, of course, but since I don't believe that sinners become
>infallible just for having pointy hats on, it isn't a source of direct
>contradiction.  However, if you believe that something which is accepted "at
>all times in all places" automatically becomes infallible after a few
>hundred years, Christian history needs a lot of explaining away.

This paragraph bothers me since it seems to reduce the doctrine of 
infallibility to a mechanical process, which it is not.  In particular,
while a share in the charism of infallibility is part of the charism
of episcopal ordination, it does not mean that everything a bishop
says, or even all the bishops say is automatically infallible.  I
agree that the mechanism is unclear.  I have faith that the Holy
Spirit guards the faith in this way.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: 751kaiser@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: LXX      the SEPTUAGINT (in english)
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:56:18 GMT
Organization: Western Michigan University

HELLO!!!!!!!

this posting need only concern those familar on this book.

I'm looking for an English version of the Septuagint or otherwise known as...

LXX

I've got the original Greek but I'm not a greek scholar (or novice anyway)

Also I'd like the Muslim Koran and the Jewish Torah (whatever) but I known I 
can get them at my local library.

However the Septuagint is what I'm looking fer since it has books that arnt
in the bible of a non-Catholic person like me like the Maccabees and Susanna.

thanks fer anyhelp anyone can give

livelongandprosper						godbless

matthew								galileo

[If you simply want the additional books that are not present in the
reduced Protestant canon, get any of the many English Bibles that have
the full set.  The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) comes in an
additional with apocrypha, that includes a merger of Catholic and
various orthodox deuterocanonical books.  Of course any Catholic
translation will have the d.c. books that they accept, but there are a
few additional ones.  However the LXX also has the other OT books.
Sometimes it has variations from the Hebrew text.  If you want to
evaluate that, then you'd need an English translation of the full LXX.
I don't know of any, but there may be some.  The TEV (Good News Bible)
has an appendix listing the LXX versions of all OT texts quoted in the
NT in their LXX form.  Let me try to clarify this: In the 1st Cent,
the LXX was the standard Greek translation of the OT.  The NT writers
wrote in Greek.  Thus when they quoted the OT, they often quoted from
the LXX rather than making their own translation from the Hebrew.
(They also often cited freely, presumably from memory.  This means
that they don't always match word for word.)  Sometimes the passage in
the LXX has rather different nuances than in the Hebrew.  Unless you
understand about the LXX, it would look like they had misquoted the
OT.  The TEV has a footnote where the NT quoted the OT in a specific
LXX form.  Then in an appendix they list English translations of all
of those verses in the LXX.

--clh]
From: ajackson@csr.uvic.ca (Ann  Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:48:20 GMT

In article <Aug.14.05.12.57.1992.651@athos.rutgers.edu>, norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak) writes:
>A couple of weeks ago the PBS series "Columbus and the Age of Discovery"
>mentioned a 16th-century papal document teaching that Indians were human beings
>with souls, and forbidding their enslavement by Spanish conquistadors.  
>It wasn't obeyed quickly, but the efforts of crusading priests like the 
>Dominican friar las Casas brought about greater justice for the native peoples.
>
>Can a net.historian add to this?

I'm no historian, but here's a quotation that seems relevant:

    Tell me, by what right or justice do you hold these Indians in such a
cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged such detestable
wars against these peoples, who dwelt quietly and peacefully on their own
land? Wars in which you have destroyed such infinite numbers of them by
homicides and slaughters never before heard of? Why do you keep them so
oppressed and exhausted, without giving them enough to eat or curing them of
the sicknesses they incur from the excessive labour you give them? And they
die, or rather, you kill them, in order to extract and acquire gold every day.
    And what care do you take that they should be instructed in religion, so
that they may know their God and creator, may be baptized, may hear Mass and
may keep Sundays and feast days? Are these not men? Do they not have rational
souls? Are you not bound to love them as you love yourselves? Don't you
understand this? Don't you feel this? Why are you sleeping in such a profound
and lethargic slumber? Be assured that in your present state you can no more
be saved than the Moors or Turks, who lack the faith of Jesus Christ and do
not desire it.

from a sermon preached Advent 4, 1511
by Antonio de Montesinos (Dominican friar)
in Santo Domingo

I got this from an article in _The New Yorker_ in February of this year.

Ann Jackson
From: stehman@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jeff Stehman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:37:02 GMT

>A couple of weeks ago the PBS series "Columbus and the Age of Discovery"
>mentioned a 16th-century papal document teaching that Indians were human beings
>with souls, and forbidding their enslavement by Spanish conquistadors.  
>It wasn't obeyed quickly, but the efforts of crusading priests like the 
>Dominican friar las Casas brought about greater justice for the native peoples.


I have a recent article somewhere around here (recent being < 1 year).  I
thought it was in Military History, but I can't track it at the moment.  In
part, the topic was Spanish treatment of Central American natives during the
16th century.  The author claimed that the Spanish took a bad rap on this
one, for the ironic reason that they were the nice guys in the new world
(nice guys, meaning not as nasty as everybody else).  At the time, the rest
of Europe hated Spain and propaganda was rampent, helped in part by the
Spanish not censoring reports of unpleasant incidents.

If the author's thesis is true, I'd expect the above papal document to be
more of an attack on Spain than a defense of the Indians.

>Can a net.historian add to this?

Hey, no claims here.

						Jeff Stehman
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sexual Immorality
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:56:45 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

[Ernest Conrad Mueller asked about the meaning of the word translated
"fornication".  I summarized my current understanding, which is that
the word has is best translated "sexual immorality", and typically has
a fairly general meaning.  However it is sometimes used for adultery,
and in Jewish use sometimes is used figuratively for idolatry.  --clh]

The word is porneia (yes, the very word we've discussed on the divorce thread).
Strong's definition is "illicit sexual intercourse."  Note Gal 5:19 where
adultery (moicheia) and porneia are distinct from each other.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: resurrection question
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:11:42 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Aug.18.01.54.47.1992.26692@aramis.rutgers.edu> tvh@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (HARRISON, TONY V) writes:
>
>	Just a quick question...Once we die do we go straight to heaven in a 
>new spiritual body, or do we remain in the earth until the Lord comes again?
>Obviously Moses appeared to Peter, etc., The rich man and Lazarus, upon death,
>were in hell and heaven, respectively.  Any verses of assurance in either 
>case?  Thanks in advance.
>			Tony H.
>
>[I'm sure contributors will respond.  I'm afraid however that you're
>going to get responses in both directions.  This is one of the classic
>unsettled points.  One of the difficulties in settling things is that
>time references may not be as clear as they look.  (1) From the point
>of view of the person, he's not going to be conscious of being dead,
>so however long it is, it's going to seem immedate to him.  (2) It's
>not entirely clear to me that God or the folks who are with him
>experience time in the same linear fashion that we do.  These things
>make me a bit sceptical about some of the arguments I've seen.  --clh]

Tony:
  I do not have time right now to look up all the verses, but if you
reply to this I will get back to you when I can.  The answer to your
question, and scripture backs this up, is that we do indeed go to
heaven directly once we die if we are saved.  However, unsaved people
do not go to the eternal hell right away but instead go to hades
(where there is burning and suffering just like hell) until they stand
before Jesus on judgment day.  Briefly, old testament saints went to
"Abrahams Bossom" which was a part of Hades but for those who were
saved by faith.  Those who weren't saved went to the other section of
Hades where there in continual torment.  This is illustrated in the
story of the rich man and the beggar.  When Jesus Christ died, he
descended into Hades (as the scriptures tell us) and took with him the
saved from Abraham's bosom.  From that point on, all believers go
directly to heaven (as illustrated by the thief on the cross who Jesus
told would be in paradise with him that day.  Eventually, all those
unsaved in Hades will stand before Christ and be judged guilty and
cast into the lake of fire which will also be reserved for Satan.  All
those who ARE saved will also stand before Christ and their works will
be judged for their heavenly rewards, though they themselves will be
saved.
From: chawdry@orange.cis.ohio-state.edu (rehan nisar chawdry)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Fasting
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:04:54 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science

[Someone whose name is unclear because of multiple widgets
>emphasizes one thing: NEVER FAST WITHOUT EXPERT SUPERVISION.  This can be 
>your priest or spiritual director (assuming they have experience with 
>fasting), your doctor, or some other qualified person, but it is NOT 
>something to try on your own.  Nutrition is the most obvious factor, but far 
>from the only one.  Anyone with any kind of eating disorder (even a mild one) 
>will find fasting to be playing with fire.  Fasting also induces altered 
>states of consciousness and perception, which can trigger other problems.
--clh]

You need to be careful when fasting, however expert supervision is
not necessary.  Slowdown in activity is common, but fasting cleanses
the body physically as well as mentally.  Muslims fast one month a year
from sunrise to sunset -- in the summer months for 18 hours a day with no
food nor liquid.
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Please Prove it to me!
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:55:15 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

From: studman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Daniel Tseng)
> Currently I am as you might say a "non-believer", and I've been trying
> to accept the basic premise of Christianity, the belief that Jesus was our
> Savior and gave his life for our sins.  Now that's great and everything, b
> it's very difficult for me to accept something without some sort of proof 
> this.  Don't bring the bible into it, that's not a valid argument for me
> either, I've read alot of the bible, Matthew, etc... and know about Jesus'
> birth and his travels and the stories in Israel.  How do I and you know th
> it's not all made up by some lunatic way back when.

God tells us plainly in Rom. 1 why people have problems with the
Christian faith: they are rebels against his law order. The problems
they have with the faith are not intellectual; they are ethical. The
sort of proof the unconverted seek will never be sufficient to convince
their minds apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit. All
unconverted men know instinctively that God exists, that he is
powerful, that they have violated his law, and that they deserve
punishment. Because of their sin, however, they suppress this truth that
cries out within them at every opportunity. They must recognize that
any life or faith apart from God is not merely wrong, but rebellious
and self-frustrating. It is only on the basis of the Christian faith
that human life is intelligible. For this reason un-  and
anti-Christian philosophies must borrow from Christianity to make their
tenets at least bearable. The logical conclusion of all anti-Christian
philosophies is the utter destruction of humanity; for this reason they
cannot afford to be logical.

Andrew Sandlin posting from the account of