HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Responsibility of Leaders
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:13:17 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:

>It depends on what we are buying.  In the case of Christian music, I
>believe that we are buying two things; first we are saying that the
>music is acceptable, and second we are saying that the ministry is
>acceptable.  To buy a Sandi Patti tape is to say that you believe that
>it is acceptable for a visible leader of a Christian ministry to be
>divorced/ in the process of divorce.  To not buy (when one would otherwise)
>is to say that it is unacceptable.

>The quality and message of the works may be saintly; however it really
>doesn't mean much if the one preaching cannot follow his/her own words.

I don't know if I can go for this 100%.  To a certain extent, any work
of art (music, visual arts, etc.) must be judged without reference to 
the details of the artists life.  If what they have illustrated or
commented on regarding life is true or useful or thought-provoking,
it remains so even if they've crashed and burned in their own walk.
Of course, if they have bunged up, it throws doubt on whether their
expressions _are_ true or valid, but it doesn't automatically invalidate
anything they ever said or did.

I also am uncomfortable that we take a _musician_ and move them from
the status of "artist" to the status of "leader of a Christian ministry".
To be sure, their music may minister to us, but to load them up with
the burden of being a "ministry leader", on a par with a pastor or
teacher, etc., I think is unhelpful and may contribute to the problems
some of our "Christian celebrities" experience in their personal lives.
I make these comments as someone who was active in a Christian band -
oh, uh, I mean "music ministry" - for several years.  

--
===============================================================================
paul marxhausen                              \/               grace 
university of nebraska - lincoln             /\              happens           
===============================================================================
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Greek Bible
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:26:05 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

Does anyone know of a *modern* Greek translation of the Bible?

I've seen New Testaments about, but not the whole thing.

A lot of "modern" Greek Bibles are not in today's spoken Greek but in
Katharevousa    ie. "intellectual" Greek.


I'm looking for *today's* Greek.


Thanks,

Derek.



PS. BTW, is there a Koine Greek version of the *whole* Bible? If not,
what did the early Greek Christians use to get Old Testament knowledge?
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Are Most Religious Followers So Sensitive?
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:08:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Sep.25.21.05.24.1992.3862@athos.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
>
>   Recently I posted an article on being a Non-Religious Practioner.
>   In my statement, I said I don't agree or believe the truthfulness
>   of the Bible.  All I asked was for some more facts besides the
>   Bible claiming that God exists.  
>
>   Is that too much to ask for from this Newsgroup?  To some obviously
>   it must have been because I got some real nasty and attacking
>   comments.  Are you all that sensitive to the point to get nasty
>   with someone who don't believe in God just by faith.  

I am outraged that anyone claiming to be a Christian would
attack you for asking for evidence.

It's 2:30 AM and my brain is getting parity errors, so I can't get
too detailed right now.  Some good books to read are "Miracles: A
Preliminary Study" by C. S. Lewis, "Who Moved the Stone," by ?
Morrison, and the trilogy "The God Who is There", "Escape from Reason",
and "He is There and He is Not Silent", by Francis Schaeffer.

(FYI, the title "Escape from Reason" referrs to Schaeffer's thesis
that to maintain disbelief in God, a thinking person ultimately has
to abandon reason.)
-- 
   "How can three dozen computer designers beat | Mike Van Pelt
a team of over a thousand?"    -- Thomas Watson | mvp@netcom.com
   "I believe Mr. Watson has answered his own   | mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
question."                      -- Seymour Cray
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Rapture Question (also Challenge to Dispensationalists)
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:13:12 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

[Forgive me if this question was answered in the original message.  I
missed it at my site.]

baresson@cbnewsi.att.com writes:

>3. The doctrine of imminency demands a pre-tribulation
>rapture. We believe that the Lord can return at any time. 

Could you please define this doctrine of imminency from the Scriptures?  How
is it that the folks who hold to this "imminency" doctrine are many of the
same folks who have been telling us all the signs point to the fact that
we're the "terminal generation?"  If Christ's return is "imminent", how can
there be signs prior to the rapture?

--
Tom Albrecht
From: pstephan@condor.mcs.kent.edu (Paul H. Stephan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christians and economics (was: no title given)
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:32:18 GMT
Organization: Kent State University

>In article <Sep.24.23.52.28.1992.4300@athos.rutgers.edu> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>Is there anybody relating their Christianity to the profession of Economics?
>I find that there are some people who refuse to accept the idea that I can
>be an economist and a Christian at the same time. I would like to see
>writings on this topic.

Have you ever heard of Larry Burkett?  He runs an organization called
Christian Financial Concepts in Gainsville, GA.  He has written many books
and has a radio program - they primarily deal with financial planning info
and not so much economics.  But then I'm not an Economist, so what do I
know?

Paul H. Stephan (pstephan@mcs.kent.edu)
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 'my personal savior'
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:11:54 GMT

Jeff Carroll writes:

>When I read your first post, it resonated with an issue I've thought a lot
>about lately. I think the dogma (yes, dogma; did you think only Catholics
>had dogma?) of Jesus as personal saviour is a latter-day Gnosticism which
>would have been expunged from the Church back in the days when they were
>kicking out heretics, and that its roots lie in Protestantism's repudiation
>of the authority of tradition.

I would like if you explained what you meant by calling it a gnosticism.  As
I said in one of my responses, I think it is a necessary component of our
relationship to God.  (Whether it has this meaning in its typical usage is
another issue.  Personally I think it is used more as a catch-phrase.)
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: pnelson@bullwinkle.tymnet.com (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: biblical inerrancy / sign of Jonah
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:08:30 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <Sep.25.21.37.18.1992.4641@athos.rutgers.edu> laura@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Laura Gillespie) writes:

>Dear moderator of this newsgroup, I respectfully object to your tacking
>on your own opinions onto other people's posts.  That is a violation of

etc...

 In about a year of reading this newsgroup, I have read one tacked-on
opinion which I thought really unhelpful. You may have read my response
which was posted here recently. One of the reasons I responded as I did
was the rarity of such unhelpful comments.

 I regret that in my haste to correct our moderator, I did not mention how
much I appreciate his careful, fair, and tactful handling of this group.
I have no objection to the policy of adding comments, I find almost all of
them helpful.

 One slip per year is a pretty good record, in my experience.

--

Phil Nelson . pnelson@tymix.Tymnet.COM . San Jose, CA, USA . 408-922-7508

    A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding,
      than a hundred blows into a fool.                    Proverbs 17:10
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-29)
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:36:44 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Tuesday, September 29:

     How I do love your law!  All day long it is my concern.  
<Psalm 119: 97>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: bj368@cleveland.freenet.edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Mennonite Questions
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:14:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


   I am a Christian but at this time I do not belong to a church.

 I have read quite a bit about the history of the Mennonite
 church and what they believe in and what they are doing, which
 is a great inspiration in community work in many parts of 
 the world.

 I would like very much to hear from people who are part of
 the Mennonite church and hear about their good work 
 experiences and perhaps see if I may find a way to join.
 peace and love.     You can E mail me at above address.
                     thanks.   mike romano


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A.N. Wilson's New Book.
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:59:12 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Sep.30.01.49.26.1992.7538@geneva.rutgers.edu> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
>I've just read an article about A.N. Wilson's new book where he explains
>why he lost his faith.

>One of his points is "unresovled contradictions" in the Gospels.
>The four he came up with were:

>1) Jesus called the Gentiles "pigs & dogs" and yet the Church
>   included Gentiles

Where did Jesus call Gentiles pigs?
I know that he asked the Syro-Phonecian woman if it were right to give the
children's bread to dogs.  After the woman's clever, faith-filled response,
he did daughter.  This is recorded in Matthew.  In the same book He said 
of a centurion, whose servant He 
healed, "I have not seen so great faith, no, not in Israel."  He also said
that many would come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, and that the children of 
the kingdom would be cast into outer darkness."  Christ prophecied that there
would be Gentiles in the kingdom of heaven.


>3) Jesus chose blood as a symbol, which would be anaethema to Jews
>   at the time. Being a good Jew himself, he "wouldn't do such a thing."

I suppose he thinks that good Jews are not argumentative or contraversial.
One Jew told me, "Where there are three Jews there are four opinions."  

>4) The Trial of Jesus happened on the passover. Wilson says that good
>   Jews would not interupt the rituals of an important holy day with a
>   trial for a mere Galilean trouble maker.

Christ was not just some Galilean trouble maker.  The Jewish government feared
losing their place and nation because of Him.  He had entered the city on
a donkey with people saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David."

Link Hudson

[I assume he was referring to Mat 15:26, which is a source for the
dogs.  Possibly the pigs come from Mat 7:6, though I don't think that
was intended as a general judgement on Gentiles.  --clh]
From: cabezon!kapila@uunet.uu.net (Kapila Ranasinghe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: RE: A Question on the Bible
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:42:11 GMT
Organization: Logic Modeling Corporation of Beaverton Oregon

I wish to thank all of you, who responded to
my questions about the bible.

Kapila
kapila@lmc.com
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Defending the Faith through Fear (was Inerrancy)
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:12:28 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Sep.25.21.13.11.1992.4049@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:

   I don't know what you mean that I have no theology of belief.  I
   have been posting nothing but since I came to this BB.  I've
   explained things like dispensationalism, pre, post and a
   millennialism, either/or vs and/but, the concepts of absolutism,
   fundamentalism, and inerrancy.  I've talked about the sovereign
   pontiff, the ancient mystery religion. I discussed angelology.
   There was the discussion of post-Xian Eraism.

You misunderstood.  I meant that, you do not seem to have considered
the act of believing, in and of itself.  I.e., what causes me to
believe, what must I believe, how do I know that I believe correctly,
etc.
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Men and Women
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:18:03 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON


        Perhaps I can offer some comments based on my experience.  I
attend a local church where the men are urged to take a leadership
role within the church and within the family.  The Christian women
in the church wear headcoverings during meetings, and also remain
silent during meetings.

        It has been repeatedly stressed in messages that I have
heard, that men and women are equal before God, but God has given
them different role to fulfill.  We believe that the Father and the
Son are equal, but the Son was submissive to the Father's will.  Likewise,
I may be equal to my boss at work (equal wrt being of the same 
intelligence and values), but I choose to submit to my boss's
authority within the company, because I know that this is what my
employer requires of me.

        It has also been stressed in the sermons in my church, that
the person who leads is the one who serves.  An understanding of
Biblical leadership in the home will draw one to the conclusion that
being a leader will make a man's life harder.  If the man is going
to love his wife in the Biblical fashion, then he will love her with
a self-sacrifical love.  Any man who tries to use his role of
leadership (whether in the home or the church) to make his own
life easier, is not worthy of being a leader.  That brings up the
question of what we do when God ordained authority is acting in an
ungodly manner (I will not attempt to solve this question at this
time!).

        A third thing that has been stressed to me, is that the
converse of authority is responsiblity.  This concept is mentioned
wrt church leaders in Hebrews 13:17.  If God gives a man authority
as a leader within the home, then He will also call that man to
account for how he used or misused that authority.

        I wish that every man and woman in my church were able to
practice these principles perfectly, but they are not.  Then again,
I wish that I myself was perfectly able to obey the Bible.  I am
trying, but I have SO FAR to go!  I do know that I have seen
married believers in my church living out these principles to the
best of their ability, and I have seen the beautiful effect in the
lives of men and women.

Shawn Abigail
abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: A.N. Wilson's New Book.
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:49:27 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

I've just read an article about A.N. Wilson's new book where he explains
why he lost his faith.

One of his points is "unresovled contradictions" in the Gospels.
The four he came up with were:

1) Jesus called the Gentiles "pigs & dogs" and yet the Church
   included Gentiles

2) When Jesus was called "Good master" he said only "God is good,"
   thereby apparently denying both his sinlessness and divinity
   in one swoop.

3) Jesus chose blood as a symbol, which would be anaethema to Jews
   at the time. Being a good Jew himself, he "wouldn't do such a thing."

4) The Trial of Jesus happened on the passover. Wilson says that good
   Jews would not interupt the rituals of an important holy day with a
   trial for a mere Galilean trouble maker.


Any comments?
From: v118majw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall M Desmond)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: MEN > WOMEN  "...because the Bible tells me so..."
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:37:02 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo

Hey.

If Eve was made from Adam's rib to give Adam a mate, and God created Adam
and then decided to create Eve, and Paul says the husband is head over
his wife just as Christ is over his church, who is to say, according to 
the Bible, that men and women are equal?

[This question is what you mean by equal.  Gal 3:28 makes it clear
that Paul considered men and women equal in some sense.  There has
never been any question about their intrinsic value as people or their
relationship to God.  Men and women are saved in the same way, and
each is responsible directly to God.  And after a discussion citing
Adam and Eve in I Cor 11, Paul qualifies what he said with a warning
that you shouldn't push the differences too far (I Cor 11:11).

Remember that Christians, based on Jesus' teachings, don't measure
greatness by political power.  That Paul saw some difference in role
between men and women seems clear.  Exactly how far that difference
extended, and how much he would have wanted it applied in the 20th
Cent. situation, is a matter of great debate within the Church.  But
no one would say that MEN > WOMEN.  If you use Jesus as an example,
you need to remember that he said anyone who wants to be a leader must
be a servant (Mat 20:27).  Thus if you use him as a model, being the
head of the wife means serving her.

There was an interesting discussion at some point in the past
(possibly in Christia rather than here), where someone asked "OK,
suppose we agree that the husband is the head of the marriage.  Just
what in practical terms does that *mean* to your marriage?"  I thought
the responses where interesting.  No one, even among the conservative
Christians, seems to see it in terms of men controlling.  Rather, it
seems like almost a symbolic role -- the husband represents the family
in some circumstances, and may serve a tie-breaker role.  But if you
believe in the tie-breaker role, you have to do it in the light of
Paul's general principle: "submit yourselves to one another".  Thus it
does not mean that the husband's desires matter more than the wife's:
there's every reason to think that a husband may make the final
decision by deferring to his wife.

I do not want to deny that there are political implications.  The
decision that women should not be in leadership positions over men (a
position that not all Christians take) does often imply political
power.  But to the extent that people within the church start to see
what's going on as a matter of men mattering more than women, or
having power, I believe that indicates that they have moved away from
the context in which Paul was thinking.

--clh]
From: graikund@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Gitesh Raikundalia)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Friends
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:09:13 GMT
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia

Dear Neil
	 Welcome, welcome. I like your introduction - it is very
encouraging! Hope you make many, many friends through this group!
	
							Gitesh
--
Gitesh K. Raikundalia - Anti-racist,
                        Anti-sexist,
                        Anti-homophobic,
                        Anti-materialistic, (yes - I am!)
                        Pro-pacifistic,
                        Ex-Hindu,
                        Anti-satanic,   Christian.
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Sex
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:42:17 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Sep.29.02.51.07.1992.4104@athos.rutgers.edu> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>
>The above verses focus on the forbidden aspects of sexuality.  However,
>to get a balance one should read very carefully the Song of Solomon...
>
>I believe that this book should be required reading for all older teen
Christians, to
>help balance out the negative messages (thou shalt nots) that the verses
>quoted by the poster above listed, as well as to counteract the negative
>secular messages about sexuality that we are inundated with today...  

>I also believe that Christians should take a more active role in discussing
>the beauty and goodness of sexuality rather than to try to continually hide
>it or feel ashamed talking about it, or to talk about it only when refering
>to what one should NOT do...


Good post!  I agree heartily with most of it.  

With regard to talking explicitly and publicly about sex, I agree with
reservations.  I think the ideal balancing act is to somehow present to
others the notion that sex is delightful, good, godly, etc. -- and also
private.  In the past, "private" somehow came to equal "shameful."  That
needs to change, at least with regard to this issue.  

I don't mean that we
should observe total silence on the topic of sex, but neither do I want to
hear what a happily married couple discovered in bed last weekend. 
Occasionally some of my Christian girlfriends (married) have passed along
some funny thing that happened, or a problem they're experiencing, or some
sweet thing their husbands did -- but they don't give explicit details,
and I think they're right not to.  An exception would be, maybe, informal
counseling from one married person to another.

I'd be interested in hearing how others deal with this balance.




-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: news@ub.d.umn.edu (News)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 'my personal savior'
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:04:36 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth

In article <Sep.23.01.47.42.1992.1671@athos.rutgers.edu> dubin@cs.arizona.edu (Michael David Dubin) writes:
>Another frequently used and not particularly Biblical term is Dr. Billy
>Graham's "make a decision for Christ."  As far as I have read and remember, we
>are never asked in scripture to specifically make this decision.  Yes, it is
>important to make this decision, to follow the Lord, but we are told to believe
>and not to decide...

	but you need to decide if you are going to believe in him or not.
	You don't just believe by osmosis.  You don't just end up at the
	grocery store when you need groceries, you decide to get in your car
	(or on the bus, whatever) and go there.  am i making any sense?
	anyone?

	--michelle
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (10-2)
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:12:13 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Friday, October 2:

     My judicial decision is to gather nations, for me to collect 
together kingdoms, in order to pour out upon them my denunciation, all 
my burning anger; for by the fire of my zeal all the earth will be 
devoured.  <Zephaniah 3: 8>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!