HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:44:59 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

Someone recently complained that we of a more liberal bent don't
address moral issues here.  Taking that to heart, I'm going to attempt
the following.

In article <Jul.29.03.47.27.1992.25335@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer) writes:

   It must be pointed out that your above argument would make such
   sexual sins as fornication and adultery permissible.  Fornication
   and adultery are usually engaged in by responsible sapients taking
   pleasure in God's creation.  Now, to be consistent, either your
   argument is not correct, or fornication and adultery should no
   longer be considered grave sins.

Adultery is not a sin because it is "sex outside of marriage"; it is a
sin because of the violation of covenant implied.  The married partner
is breaking their marriage vows, and the other is not abiding by the
responsibility of society to support the marriage vows.  It would seem
obvious that breaking one's vows is already wrong, so the principle
against adultery principally affects third parties who did not take
the vows themselves.  It puts maintanance of the marriage as a
responsibility for the community, and not just the married partners.
The Episcopal Church emphasizes this by asking of the assembled people
at the wedding "Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in
your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage?"  This
responsibility extends past the witnesses at the wedding, of course,
and that's what the sin of adultery is all about.  This responsibility
to maintain the marriage isn't only about sex, however.  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.

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.  I'm not sure just what to
make of that...but the Greek terms in the New Testament, like
"porneia" are equally vague.  

I realize that these ideas are foreign to many here, and I'm not
willing to reply to "heathen sinner" type follow-ups.  I am willing to
reply to follow-ups that do more than repeat tired unthinking
condemnations.  

Moral theology in general is difficult to address, because most people
want guidelines for analyzing other people's behavior.  I think it's
immoral to analyze other people's behavior against moral standards, so
complaints that I'm being "subjective" will be regarded as
compliments.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
From: studman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Daniel Tseng)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Update: Prove it to me!
Date: 31 Jul 92 07:30:05 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

Hello everybody!
	Well to all those who have been kind enough to share their thoughts
and experiences with me, thank you very much.  If you all could know how
similar all of you are, but at the same time completely different.  I've
probably gotten 50-60 responses, more than I bargained for.
	Let me tell you what I've learned from all of the responses. 
	1)I should read the book by Josh McDowell, I think 20 of you guys told
	me that.
	2)I should try praying and see what it's like.
	3)50% say that no one can prove the bible as completely factual, and
	50% say that the bible is completely true.  Personally, I accept the
	judgement of the first 50% much more easily, and I think they're right
	4)I've got half the world praying for me now, thank you very much,
i	it's well appreciated trust me.

	Let me tell you about my personal feelings now.  Some of you asked me
what proof I need.  I responded to one person saying that I need God to come
down and say "boo", which still holds true (actually I'd like him to say Dan
wake up and stop being stupid).  The praying thing is still very very much on
the back burner, same with going to church.  It ain't easy folks to take such
a great leap of faith.  Many of you said, what do you have to lose?  Well,
nothing I guess, but it still isn't easy to do something that I don't feel
it's right for me to do, because I don't believe.  It's sort of like walking
into a place where you know you don't belong because you lack the proper
clothing (in this case faith).
	Many of you wanted to write me and send me mail directly with evidence
or personal opinions.  My address is:

	Daniel Tseng
	2309 Sheridan Rd. Rm#202
	Evanston, Il. 60201

	Don't write until mid-Sept., I won't be there until then.
	
	If you feel an urgent need to write me now, great!

	Daniel Tseng
	21 Sumner St.
	Woods Hole, MA. 02543

	If this keeps going on, I'll update you guys on my progress if you're
interested.  Maybe another fact about me that might shed a little light on
everything or confuse you more, my girlfriend happens to be Christian as well.
Thanks, talk to you later...

-Dan
From: daphne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Amy Kruse)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Ourselves (was Re: Bisexuals
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:44:17 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

Leslie, thank you for speaking out where so many others have been silent.
Maybe when it comes to these issues where it seems like there is no solution,
we should just watch and pray.  Pray that God will change our hearts to be
aligned with His spirit, instead of trying to make Jesus a social reformer. 
We are Christ's hands and heart to this world, and before we go changing
everything to the way we think it ought to be, let us pray that we really are
acting in concordance with God's will. If we are not, heaven help us. 
Thanks again for speaking out.   Amy Ann
From: djdaneh@pbhyc.pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: thought for the day (7-20)
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:18:31 GMT
Reply-To: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Jul.21.03.10.23.1992.3650@dumas.rutgers.edu> rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III) writes:
>Monday, July 20:
>
>     God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace.  <1 Corinthians 14: 33>

Which reminds me:

	"The police are not there to create disorder.  The police are
	there to preserve disorder."
		-- Mayor Richard Daley, after the Chicago
		   police riots at the 1968 Democratic National
		   Convention.

Never realized before that this quote was a mockery of Scripture.  Was Richard
Daley the Anti-Christ?  (Okay then, how about Nixon. . .?)

:*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*)  :*) 


			I cooked your meals, I cleaned your house,
			And this is how you pay me back
			For all my kind unselfish loving deeds?  HA?!?
			Well, you just wait, they'll find you yet,
			And when they do. . .
				-- "Napoleon XIV"

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:20:39 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Jul.23.03.30.29.1992.16284@dumas.rutgers.edu> daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow) writes:

>Hold it right there - this is not so.
>
>In the Old Testament acts of buggery were associated with ritual practises
>of non-jews - and were as such to be avoided.

The passage condemns "he who lays with a man as one does with a woman."
It does not seem to me to be that narrow of a command (buggery only.)  
Such actions are condemned and punished with the death penalty in the
Old Testament.  We can speculate and have opinions about why they were
condemned, but we are not told.  God simply condemned it as a death 
penalty crime through the prophet Moses.

>In the New Testament Paul condemns sexual immorality in the form of 
>Pedastry, rife in Greece, and the orgiastic lifestyle of the Romans. He
>never saw two people of the same sex 'in love' and expressing that love
>physically - such a thing was unthinkable in that time.

I find it a bit difficult to believe that such a concept of two men 
have deep feelings for one another and sodomizing one another is new
to the 20th century.  People in the first century had emotions, too.  
Some of the condemnations of homosexuality (Romans 1 for example) are
much to general to refer only to pedastry.

The idea that two people being 'in love' justifies  a sexual relationship
is an idea that is strong in this culture.  Being "in love" is not
a requirement for marriage in many cultures.  David may have had strong
feelings for Bathsheba when he committed adultery.  He may have felt that
he was in love with her.  But that did not make his adultery, or the
murder he had committed any less sinful.

Link Hudson.
From: amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dear Abby Column
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:26:18 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin

David Cruz-Uribe writes:
>[Dear Abby letter deleted]
>
>Dear Admirer:  I read the figures on the population explosion
>and saw pictures of thousands of starving children born of 
>parents who did not want them and could not feed them.  I
>then concluded that a just God could not possibly have given
>life to innocent children only to doom them to death by
>starvation in their infancy.
>
>In the 3+ years I have been reading s.r.c I have seen this argument a
>half a dozen times in various forms.  All that is missing is the
>traditional final sentence: "Therefore I can't possibly believe in
>(the Christian) God."  In this case, I haven't the vaguest idea what
>to infer.  However I do think it is a shallow response to an equally
>shallow letter, and so it deserves a reply.  Any suggestions?

Well, Abby has a history of answering such things in a flip fashion;
the more glib the letter, the more so her reply.  I wouldn't try too
hard to infer much of anything in this one, then.

And since there are plenty of people who believe in God and who are
pro-choice, I wouldn't even infer what you have indirectly done by the
example of other people's arguments.  However, if we delve any further
into this it'll turn into an abortion discussion, which I really don't
want to have.

>P.S.  Out of curiosity, what is "Dear Abby"'s religious affiliation,
>if any?

Abigail Van Buren, who was born Pauline Esther Friedman, is Jewish.
So whatever God she believes in, I don't think it's the Christian
one... :)

>Yours in Christ,
>
>David Cruz-Uribe, SFO

-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
From: joni@apollo.hp.com (Joni Sini)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Read The Bible Through
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:58:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Jul.4.02.59.56.1992.12314@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, tvh@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (HARRISON, TONY V) writes:
|> I would appreciate any suggestions on different ways to read the Bible.  I have
|> been reading it from cover-to-cover and notice so many similar scriptural
|> passages throughout.  Can many books/verses in the Bible be read at the same
|> time to increase knowledge and understanding of HIS word?  THANKS in advance.
|> 
|> 			Tony H.

I am certainly no authority, but why not do just what you say : "Can many
books/verses in the Bible be read at the same time to increase knowledge
and understanding of HIS word?" ,   with a purpose.

I do that, usually when a subject 'burns' inside me.  Of course,  when 
that happens I feel absolutely compelled and excited about it, like jumping
in the water after a long hot day.  Its a thirst that needs quenching/water.

Some of the subjects that have 'drawn' me were the Holy Spirit,  our
liberty in Christ, freewill and predestination, the 'old' covenant/walk 
verses the 'new' covenant/walk, types and allegory (usually in the 
old testament, ) , but types and allegory is usually something the Holy Spirit would reveal as I was studying something else (such as Numbers 9:15 -10: 
as a type for the 'Holy Spirit' and our walking in the Spirit, 
the cloud and fire being the Spirit).  

I find this type of study alot of fun, and I love to see the consistency
in scripture.  After a while the relationships between the subjects become 
clearer and clearer. 

Joni
From: REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Signs of the Times (was Re: End of the World Predictions...)
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:25:00 GMT
Organization: Fermilab

In article <Jul.26.16.26.51.1992.22153@dumas.rutgers.edu>
Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:
>(1)  Where does this dry bones image come from and how does it fit into
>the passage in Matthew about not knowing the hour, etc.?

forgive me for not giving you more time than I'm going to give to this.  I
believe it is in Isaiah (could be wrong) that the dry bones are spoken of in
reference to Israel being called forth from the corners of the earth, being
reborn, if you will, and estblished in the land of promise.
>
>(2)  How do you get that the fig tree mentioned in Matthew (and in a
>similar way in Lukan parallel passage) refers to Israel?   As far as I
>can tell he is just making an analogy with his followers looking at the
>signs he speaks of previously and a little later.
>

the fig tree is a common representative of Israel through out scripture.

>Also, related to this...when you speak of the rapture, are you refering to
>the secret rapture, and if so where is that presented in the Bible?

The question as to whether or not it is secret is one that I cannot answer. 
When it happens I have no idea how those who are not "caught up" will deal with
it.  Nor do I know if it will be audible to them.  I don't know.  But if you're
sincerely interested in a presentation and defence of the doctrine, I could
point you to some books.  I guess the shortest and eaiest would by Charles
Ryries "What You Should Know About THe Rapture" published by Moody Press.

again, sorry for the brievity,
Rex
From: carlson@ab00.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bisexuals
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:01:49 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA

In article <Jul.21.03.07.32.1992.3106@dumas.rutgers.edu>, armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:
|>  
|> Perhaps I misunderstand what it means to be bisexual, or perhaps I mis-
|> understand what Christian bisexuals would like other Christians to
|> support.
|> 

I think you do misunderstand.  To be capable of being attracted to/forming
sexual relationships with persons of either sex doesn't automatically 
preclude monagamous relationships.  Bisexuality is an orientation, not a
moral code.

--  
|> [One interesting aspect of the homosexual discussion is that I've
|> heard very little positive discussion of Christian sexual ethics from
|> the homosexual side.  I've never been quite clear when we are asked to
|> support ordination of homosexuals whether we're talking about only
|> homosexuals who subscribe to standard Christian ethics, but with
|> people of the same sex, or whether people are proposing more radical
|> revisions of sexual ethics.
|> --clh]

While it's not from a lesgay perspective, Bishop John Song's book "Living
in Sin?" raises a lot of good questions about sexual ethics from a very
non-traditional prespective.  While I feel that some of his conclusions
and recommendations are only halfway thought out, I thought the book was
excellent in raising the right questions and pointing out the subjects that
the Church needs to consider.  Also, although not discussion sexual ethics
per se, Louie Crewe's collection "A Book of Revelations" gives the personal
stories of approximately 50 lesgay Christians.  It's possible to infer a
lot about the "homosexual side" of Christian sexual ethics from what they
tell you about themselves.
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov)*       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23665-5225                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Where is this verse?
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:09:13 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <Jul.21.03.43.01.1992.9450@dumas.rutgers.edu> DSIMON@atlas.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) writes:


   There is a verse somewhere in the Old Testament that says something like,
   "The way of salvation is so simple that even a child can understand it," or
   "The way of righteousness is so plain that not even a fool can err therein"
   or something like that.  Anyone know where this verse is?

This might be Proverbs 15:19:

The way of the slothful man is as an hedge of thorns:
  but the way of the righteous is made plain.  (AV)

However, the word `plain' is the older meaning of "even, level"
(Webster's New Collegiate), a meaning now extinct for the adjective.
(The noun, of course, refers to "an extensive area of level or rolling
treeless country.")  Once again, the King James loses.  NRSV has:

The way of the lazy is overgrown with thorns,
  but the path of the upright is a level highway.

In other words, this doesn't say that righteousness is easy or obvious
("made plain"), but rather, that one doesn't encounter constant
obstacles if one is righteous.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Prayer for South Africa
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:38:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: PPUTTER@dos-lan.cs.up.ac.za (Phillip Putter)

>Greatings in the wonderfull name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Please join my in
>praying for South Africa. We have a situation of large-scale violance and
>unrest which is leading to much loss of life. We strongly believe that if the
>Lord does not save our nation more bloodshed awaits.
>
>We would like you to pray specifically for:
>- the Church to wake up and start praying,
>- revival in all our Churches and a massive anointing of the Holy Spirit,
>- Church leaders to break with tradition and return to preaching the full
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  Word of God as the only Truth,
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>- Leaders in all spheres to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit to work out
>  our many problems.

I am sorry, I have held back on several recent occasions, but
here it comes again - sectarian insults disguised as a pious
call to prayer.

If you want to call for prayers for South Africa, fine. If you
want to criticise those churches which believe the Bible must
be interpreted in the light of church tradition, fine. But
don't mix the two together.

In any case, you are contradicting yourself. Either the Holy
Spirit acts within the church to guide it into finding new
truths (as your fourth point suggests) or it does not (as your
third point suggests).

Matthew Huntbach
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Abuse and Divorce
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:02:19 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Jul.30.03.47.56.1992.11702@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:
>Some people in this discussion have said that when one member of a covenant
>lets down their end of the bargain, the other is no longer bound by
>the agreement.  This was supplemented by a discussion of how if someone 
>does something with a death penalty in the Law attached, they are
>then "dead" and any covenants they are in no longer are binding.
>
>I cannot reconcile this with several things found in the Bible.
>Firstly, Israel was God's "bride," and was unfaithful and adulterous
>many times in the OT.  However God did not depart the covenant.  Perhaps
>He could have, but was just being more forgiving, perhaps He was still bound.
>Under any circumstances, not leaving seems to be the better way.

I was the one who posted the statement about covenants.  My point
was that when the covenant was broken, the other person is not bound.  Yes,
the covenant CAN be re-established but it doesn't have to be.

In the case of spousal abuse, the wife is not bound to the covenant; she can
either divorce (and remarry) or re-establish the covenant with her husband
and try again.  To divorce is not unforgiving, as you seem to imply.  And when
the husband is threatening to beat her over the head with a baseball bat,
I think staying would be suicidal and leaving is the better way.  God never had
to worry about that kind of treatment when He chose to re-establish His covenant
with Israel so I think your example would no apply in this situation.  Of
course, He DID depart from His covenant and allowed the Jews to wander in the
desert for 40 years, to be conquered by just about every nation in the Middle
East, etc.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: mchamberland@violet.waterloo.edu (Marc Chamberland)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Where is this verse?
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:15:29 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Jul.21.03.43.01.1992.9450@dumas.rutgers.edu>, DSIMON@atlas.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) writes:
> There is a verse somewhere in the Old Testament that says something like,
> "The way of salvation is so simple that even a child can understand it," or
> "The way of righteousness is so plain that not even a fool can err therein"
> or something like that.  Anyone know where this verse is?
> -------
> Dan S.

How about Isaiah 35:8 :

"And a highway shall be there and a way, and it shall be called
The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be
for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."

Marc