HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeffries@iastate.edu (Anthony G Jeffries)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ARE THERE ANY CHRISTIAN GIFS OUT THERE?
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:53:02 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <Jul.28.02.22.12.1992.24505@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:

>In article <Jul.26.14.42.26.1992.3290@dumas.rutgers.edu> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>   I've been looking for a long time for any Christian computer gifs.
>   Does anyone have any or know where I can get some?

>There are going to be some Catholic GIFS soon.  I will post the
>instructions when everything is ready.

Also, there are some Christian rock (or CCM, whichever you want to call it)
available via FTP in the music directory (I think it's /pub/music/pictures/
christian) on cs.uwp.edu.  


-- 
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: anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: How can we comfort the afflicted?
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:57:22 GMT
Organization: Society of Independent Newswaifs

During the past several years, I've been informally counseling friends and
friendly acquaintances who are going through rough times -- some of them
extremely rough, involving great losses or disasters.  I have been frequently
stumped by the question "Why?  Why is this happening to me?"  My usual response
is to mumble about the inscrutability of it all, and (in a rather louder tone
of voice) assure my interlocutors that I'll help them through the experience in
any way I can, and encourage them to trust that once they've reached the other
side, they'll be able to turn what they learn from their suffering to some
good.  (I am orders-of-magnitude better at comforting people who are depressed,
for instance, because I've been there myself.)  But perhaps one of you has a
better answer?  The last discussion we had about the problem of evil was
interesting but rather abstract; at the moment I'm more interested in
approaching this topic from a pastoral point of view -- how do we comfort the
afflicted?

~ Liz Broadwell (anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu) ~                        ~
~ Department of English                             ~ Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam ~
~ The University of Pennsylvania                    ~                        ~
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:37:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Adultury need not be seen as a sexual sin; it's a specific form of
oathbreaking.  It's not directly analogous to homosexuality.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:00:40 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Jul.30.03.44.58.1992.11657@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>...  Attempts to
>spilt up those joined by vows in their relationship should be regarded
>as the equivalent of adultery.  Many conservative attempts to split up
>life-long gay marriages are sin in just this way.

Don't forget attempts to split up marriages of "unequally yoked"
heterosexuals. Usually it is more subtle than that and those doing
it deny it or rationalize it as "persecution" by the unbelieving
spouse. But I know of several cases in which attempts to split
up marriages have been deliberate and explicit. The only one I would
feel at liberty to discuss would be mine. Thankfully my wife no longer
hangs around with those fundamentalists.

>Fornication is an entirely different thing.  I'm personally inclined
>to take it as a condemnation of "excess", or perhaps "promiscuity".
>These terms are, I realize, quite vague...

Actually they are quite precise. "Excess" means more than the speaker
wants or can get. ;-)

Seriously, although I do not agree with it, I think the Bible is quite
clear that sex outside of marriage, which is the ordinary meaning of
"fornication" is condemned, though marriage itself is not so explicitly
defined. No ceremony is prescribed and there have not always been civil
requirements such as marriage licenses. It was thought to be no big deal
if Joseph had impregnated Mary while they were only betrothed.

Bill Mayne
From: isckbk@nuscc.nus.sg (Kiong Beng Kee)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: CDROM: The Bible Library
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:32:48 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

I have recently heard of a CDROM entitled "The Bible Library"
with some 7 translations, a few dictionaries, study topics ...
etc almost 300MB of material (not that I will ever read every
byte) and selling for ~US$150/-

Being in a remote part of the world, my questions --

i)	What s.r.c readers comments are this?  (if you think your
	comments are not suitable for the net, please mail me)

ii)	Are there similar products in this price range?

iii)	How to order?
-- 
Kiong Beng Kee
Dept of Information Systems and Computer Science
National University of Singapore
Lower Kent Ridge Road, SINGAPORE 0511
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: E-mail Prayer Chain
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:35:31 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

[Moderator:  You put out the original.  I suggest that you put out
this one too--or something that makes the same basic points.  --whh]

In article <Jul.26.16.26.43.1992.22117@dumas.rutgers.edu>, mccla_d@daffodil.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski) writes:
> I am assisting a person who is attempting to start a world-wide prayer chain
> via e-mail. He operates from America Online (AOL.COM). 

I suggest that this is poor idea.  The descriptive phrasing is
sugestive of chain letters.  By mail--those are illegal in the US.
The case for electronic networks is less clear, but seriously frowned
upon.

I suggest that you start a "mailing list"--and label it as such.

I also suggest that large volumes of material are likely to annoy site
administrators.

I point out that many network sites are owned organizations that have
a Constitutionally mandated separation from religious activities and
that they may not be legally able to carry your traffic even if they
wanted to.  (*And* that there are people that may say something about
it.)

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare


[The term "prayer chain" is a somewhat different use of the word
than "chain letter".  I do agree that people not familiar with
the phrase might find it troubling, so perhaps a different term
would be better.  --clh]
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: When was REVELATION written ?
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:10:07 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)

In article <Jul.20.02.22.21.1992.9263@dumas.rutgers.edu>, HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:

> Another good book is "Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls"
> by Barbara Thiering, and sells for about $23.00

Thiering's account of the origins of christianity is pure nonsense.
Her most recent book, 'Jesus the Man'(which could be the one mentioned
above) is so bizarre that it has to be seen to be believed. She says
amongst other things
-The gospels are coded works to which only she has the key.
-The Dead Sea Scrolls were written at the same time as the gospels
-Jesus and John the Baptist were both Essenes. They were leaders of
rival factions. Jesus is refered to in the DSS as 'the wicked priest'.
-Herod the Great was planning to conquer the entire Roman Empire with
the help of Jesus' father and grandfather.
-Caiaphus, Annas, Pontius Pilate and Simon Magus were also Essenes.
-All of the action described (in coded form, of course) in the gospels
took place at Qumran, and not at Nazareth, Jerusalem, Bethlehem etc.
And so it goes on. All of this complete rewriting of history has been
revealed by Dr Thiering's 'decoding' of the gosples, and is not substantiated
in any way whatsoever.
A friend of mine, who is (like me) not a christian, but a historian
of the period, has hung up his brand new copy of her book in his
toilet. There, he says, people can be amused by it and can use it
as toilet paper if they wish.
This fantasy is not a 'good book' by any stretch of the imagination!
Tim O'Neill
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: new Catholic mailing list now up and running
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:31:02 GMT
Organization: none

The mailing list I queried about a few weeks ago is now up and
running.  I have also set up an archive server; see below.  The
following is the official welcome to the list message at the moment.

Joe Buehler

--------------------

This mailing list is for people who desire serious, orthodox
discussion of the Roman Catholic religion.  I assume that it will
cater mainly to Catholics, but everyone else is welcome, provided they
operate within the below guidelines.  My own interests have a
doctrinal bent, but I'm certainly not going to limit this list to just
that sort of discussion.

Having participated in USENET religion groups for about 5 years now,
one of my primary observations about Catholics on the net is that they
do not know their religion very well.  My hope is that this list might
help remedy this problem to some extent.  I would like to make this a
net resource available for Catholics who want to know more about their
religion.

As far as moderation policy goes: The Catholic Church is not a
democracy, it's a monarchy subject to a divinely given constitution.
I don't set the rules in the Church, neither does my parish priest,
nor does my bishop, nor does the Pope.  Everyone has to adhere to the
way Christ set things up.  I think it follows that it's not really
appropriate for someone to call himself a Catholic and argue with this
state of affairs.  If you want to be Catholic, it's simple enough, you
have to follow the teaching of the Church.

The moderation policy will reflect this way of thinking: there are
plenty of other places on the net where Catholic doctrine can be
freely attacked!  If in doubt, you can always subscribe, and see
whether the list is to your taste.

Besides the mailing list, there are a few other things that may be of
interest:

- I have set up an archive server that we can put interesting things
in.  (It doesn't have anything in it at the moment except some UNIX
software useful for such endeavors.)  Sorry, guys, but nothing that's
copyrighted goes into it!

- I am planning on setting up a quotation server that can email
periodic interesting citations from the principal sources of Catholic
doctrine.  (Not done yet.)

- I have obtained permission from the English language publishers of
the Italian Catholic magazine "30 Days" to take material from their
magazine.  I intend to scan some of the more interesting pictures
(ever seen a Cristero?  or St. Pius X?) and put them in the archives,
and also post extracts from some of the more interesting articles.
(It's a European magazine, and is of generally higher quality than
American Catholic material.  In my opinion...)

If you have any questions, would like to subscribe, etc., send email
to

	catholic@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Into the highways and hedges:  A theologian's trek
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:23:51 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Jul.20.01.54.20.1992.4089@dumas.rutgers.edu> <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu> writes:

>I shared with my dean, Dr. James Anderson, some of the judgments 
>popping up in this thread.  He said that he prefers to keep company 
>elsewhere but graciously shared this document by one of the most respected 
>theologians of our day, James Nelson, as delivered to the convention of 
>Presbyterians.

An interesting post, one which does give food for thought.  However,
I do want to question one passage in it.   Nelson writes (or said):

>That same scripture tells us that after Pentecost there was an 
>important first test case for this new faith community of Jesus 
>people.    The question was whether a person  regarded by 
>tradition as sexually abnormal could be part of the body of 
>Christ.  It was the highly controversial baptism of the Ethiopian 
>eunuch by Philip. And while his critics screamed that this 
>baptism was in clear violation of the holy scriptures,  Philip 
>set aside even the prejudices of the Bible in favor of the 
>Gospel.

I could find nothing in Acts which justifies this interpretation.
Philip and the Eunuch are discussed in one pericope--Acts 8: 26-40--
and they are the only two people mentioned (besides the angel of
the Lord).  Now there may be something implicit in the broader
culture of the time (in particular I am not familiar with the
Old Testament law on this point) but, at least from Luke's point
of view, it was irrelevant to the story at hand.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: ICCGCC..HERRICKD@cs.hh.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dr. Peter Ruckman and the KJV as divinely inspired
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:04:32 GMT

In article <Jul.20.01.57.03.1992.4574@dumas.rutgers.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> 
> 	I am looking for some information on Dr. Peter Ruckman. He was 
> written a few books (I can't seem to find anyplace that carries them) 
> that put forward the notion that the KJV is the divinely inspired 
> version of the Bible for English speaking folks. I would like to find 
> out something about this movement and the good doctor. 

I don't know about Ruckman, but I recently encountered a convincing
argument supporting a proposition that is a little different than 
the one you attribute to Ruckman.

Back in the 60's, a man named Hills applied the apologetics of Cornelius
Van Til to the idea of textual criticism.  Van Tillian apologetics are
presuppositional.  I won't define that here, but I will apply it below.

When we want to know what words Homer actually wrote as he authored the
Illiad we gather the various manuscripts that remain, all of them hand
copies from later centuries than Homer.  We find a paragraph that is not
the same in all the "witnesses to the original text".  We examine what
is known about the manuscripts containing the differing texts to see if
that will tell us which is more reliable.  We examine the texts to see
if there is a clear basis to choose one over the other; if one reading
is more difficult than the other, the harder one is probably more reliable
because copyists who change things are more likely to simplify.

There are about a score such principles to apply to the available witnesses
to try to learn what the original text actually said.

There is no doubt that this is the proper approach to a document like
the Illiad.

Early this century (or late last) two scholars named Hort and Westcott
began to apply these techniques of textual criticism to the Biblical 
texts.  That process has led to the Nestle text of the Greek New
Testament, among other texts.  Many modern translations, including the
New American Standard Version and the New International Version, used
the results of this kind of criticism as the starting point for thier
translation work.

This presupposes that modern scholarship can do a better job of knowing
what the Word of God is than could Erasmus and Wycliffe and Luther and
Calvin.  Even modern scholarship applied by fallen men who remain in
active rebellion against the God whose Word it is.

A better presupposition is that God, in his Providence, did not leave His
church with a counterfeit Word at any point in the history of His church. 
Thus, we can rest confident that the church had the real Word of God in 1600 
as it did in 100.

Thus, the King James Version is translated from more reliable originals 
than used for many twentieth century translations.

dan herrick
From: west@esd.dl.nec.com	 (Mike West)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: On judging (a meta comment on the homosexuality discussion)
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:15:05 GMT

This brings up a point that has always bugged me.  Why do some
people insist on changing the standards of their current church
from a long accepted norm?  Would it not be better to just move
on?  Especially if it is consider an important issue to *both*
sides of the argument?

Before one joins a church, one finds out (or at least should)
the positions and beliefs of the church.  If you cannot accept
those positions and beliefs, you should not join.  If you can,
but later change your beliefs, you are still obligated to
publicly live by the churches beliefs;  if that is not possible
you should leave.

Mike West
west@esd.dl.nec.com

[This probably depends upon the expectations of your church, and also
the issue.  I think there are probably cases where it really is better
for people to leave.  But in general I believe you are taking a more
individualistic approach to truth than I do.  I have chosen a church
with which I agree on basic issues, style of worshop, church
government, etc.  But things change, both with people and with
churches.  Sometimes because the problems around us change.  Other
times because we learn new things.  In many cases I don't see the
final implications immediately, and I'd rather explore issues with
people I trust.  I would certainly not stay in my church if I had a
continuing and basic disagreement with its path.  But I believe I have
a better understanding of both theological and social issues because
I've allowed others in the church to influence my thoughts.  I'd like
to hope that at times I have played a similarly helpful role for
others.  Disagreement is part of this process.  There are times when
I've disagreed, and later been convinced by the church's position.
Other times not.  But I value the guidance of the community.  If I hop
between communities trying to find one that agrees with every one of
my current opinions, I'm going to miss this guidance.

American churches have had a tendency to fission at the least excuse.
I don't think that's a good thing.  I believe I'm not alone in this.
I think a number of people now accept that it's good to be part of a
community with a variety of views, and with a certain amount of
disagreement.

--clh]
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Eternal Security?
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:16:12 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

>How
>could the Apostle say that he is 'convinced of better things concerning
>you, and things that accompany salvation...' salvation....' if atheirs
>could 'fall away' ?

Very easily.  How could he say that he expected "better things" of them
if the worse possiblity did  not exist?

Link Hudson.
From: F_GRIFFITH@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christianity in decline?
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:21:33 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway

Someone wrote:"Christianity is in a decline because of its closed-
minded dogmatic approaches to a changing society."

It is the liberal denominations, which are least dogmatic, which
are suffering the decline.
It is the denominations that still emphasize the authority of 
scripture (are closed-minded & dogmatic in the eyes of our
secular society) that are growing.
From: gmcquary@ingres.com (George F. McQuary)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Polygamy in the Bible (was Re: Premarital sex)
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:26:43 GMT
Reply-To: gmcquary@ingres.com
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <Jul.20.02.22.28.1992.9280@dumas.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo)
>>
>>I am not saying that polygamy is obviously wrong in God's eyes. If you
>>propose a society that is somewhat degraded and treats unmarried women as,
>>at best, second class citizens, perhaps you could argue that God would
>>support polygamy, for the protection of the women.
>
>In the Old Testament, God's people are constantly at war with
>neighbouring tribes, many men would have been killed in this
>warfare, and the situation in which women outnumber men would
>have existed, thus justifying polygamy.
>

Polygamy, monogymy or polyandry being the norm for a society has nothing to
do with a shortage of one sex or another. Polygamy occurs in societies where
there is an abundance of resources because polygamy maximizes reproduction
activity; polyandry occurs in societies that have reached the maximum
population suppportable for their land and minimizes reproductive activity
(Eskimo tribes are an example of this situation). 

Tribal societies as those of the early O.T. rarely engage in full fledged war
as neither tribe can afford the vast loss of labor that this would ensue.
Instead, tribal disputes are often settled by a single fight between champions
(as in the story of David and Goliath), minimizing the loss of labor.

The polygamous figures that appear in the O.T. initially lived in areas of
rich abundance in comparison to the size of their population. It may just be
my imagination, but it also seems that number of polygamous figures drops off
in the Bible as time progresses and the population had increased. 

--
George F. McQuary 
"He is mad, bad and dangerous to know." -Lady Caroline Lamb
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (7-22)
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:54:31 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Wednesday, July 22:

     For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he 
is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test.  
<Hebrews 2: 18>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Compuserve - 72250.3521@compuserve.com.  Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!