HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Living In Sin
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:06:33 GMT
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman

In article <Jan.19.00.25.19.1993.2148@farside.rutgers.edu>  
daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow) writes:
> Living In Sin - A bishop rethinks human sexuality
> 
> Jack Spong re-addresses many of the contemporary human sexuality issues,
> and comes up with some interesting thoughts. He discusses issues of  
divorce,
> sexually active single adults, and homosexuality. 
> 
> Starting by providing a case against literalism, he argues all the time
> honoured arguements of biblical attitudes to these modern day problems  
being
> based on the culture and prejudice of the time in which they were  
written.

I do not think that any of these issues biblical meaning change with  
society. If society changes its veiws on blasphamy, theft, murder, etc.,
is it ok to do them.  This sort of thinking is understandable because the  
Bible seems to be saying that so many socaily acceptable people are living  
in sin.  The problem is that they are.  The Bible is very clear about the  
salt lossing its saltiness and how it then becomes worhtless.  As  
Christians we must not lose our saltiness.  These people, and all people,  
need our love.  We must show them our Christian love.  That does not mean  
that we missinterpret the Bible to make them feel better, even though the  
motives might not be bad.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A beginner's question
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:14:02 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Jan.22.03.47.52.1993.6062@athos.rutgers.edu> ross@cc.gatech.edu (Rosario DSouza, J) writes:
>Some people tell me that some parts of the Bible should be taken
>literally, and some parts should not. My question is: how does one
>discern which parts are to be taken literally and which should not?

   Generally, it depends on the literary form used by the particular
book in question ("book" = Genesis, Psalms, Matthew, Revelation,
etc.).  Probably most people acknowledge that Genesis is in many ways
symbolic.  The Gospels, such as Matthew, are fairly literal accounts
of the life of Jesus, although probably Jesus' parables, etc. were
likely not intended to be taken literally.  Revelation is known as
apocalyptic writing containing many symbolic images (i.e. the Beast is
often considered to represent Nero, Emperor of Rome).  The Epistles
(i.e. Romans, Corinthians, James, etc.) are to be taken literally for
the most part, as is Acts of the Apostles.

   You may want to find a good Bible or commentary that tells what
literary forms are being used in the various books.  I use the New
American Bible, which has such notes in the introduction to each book.
Revised Standard Version and New International Version may also have
such notes, but I don't have those versions.

   By the way, just because something is not literally true in the
Bible, does not mean that it is not true.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

[The Protestant tradition is that translations don't have notes.
There are editions of the RSV and NIV with notes similar to the NAB or
JB, but they're not part of the translations themselves.  The NIV
Study Bible is a popular annotated NIV.  The Oxford Annotated edition
of the NRSV is commonly used in college courses.  In many ways, a
better introduction is probably one of the texts intended for use in
first-year college OT and NT courses, typically with titles like
"Introduction to the [ON]T".  Reasonable recommendations for the NT
are Howard Kee, "Understanding the NT" (liberal) or Donald Guthrie,
"Introduction to the NT" (conservative).  --clh]
From: hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (1-25)
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:15:14 GMT

Monday, January 25:

   Worthy art thou, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor
and power, for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they
existed and were created.  <Revelation 4:11>
From: russ@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Church Disciples of Christ?
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:12:46 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

CLH> The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is the liberal wing of
CLH> the Restoration Movement of the early 19th Cent. It was formed 
CLH> in 1831 by a merger of "Christians" and "Disciples". . . . The 
CLH> more conservatives left in 1927, forming the group that is more
CLH> commonly known as the Church of Christ or the Christian 
CLH> Church.

Just a point of clarification, the Restoration Movement eventually 
split into three bodies:  The Disciples of Christ, The Independent 
Christian Churches, and The Churches of Christ (non instrumental).  
The Churches of Christ split away from the Disciples in 1906 and the 
Independent Christian Churches split away from the Disciples in 
1927.

Although there are many books on the Restoration Movement, one of 
the most recent and best is _In Search of Christian Unity:  A History 
of the Restoration Movement_ by Henry E. Webb (Standard 
Publishing, 1990).  For those with a more scholarly bent, there's a 
good "intellectual history" of the Movement by Richard M. Tristano 
entitled _The Origins of the Restoration Movement_ (Glenmary 
Research Center, 1988).  These two books offer the most balanced 
accounting of the whole movement.  FYI.

Russ Paden
Internet: Russ@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Bitnet: Russ@ukanvax
From: pkammer@liege.ics.uci.edu (Peter Kammer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:12:56 GMT

In <Jan.22.03.55.40.1993.6114@athos.rutgers.edu> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:

>Can somebody enlighten me on this question:

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

	Simple question, complex and somewhat indeterminate answer.  The
examples you present deal with evil of humanity, e.g. hatred, murder.
Evil of this nature seems to be a necessary result of free will.  In
other words our decisions are not determined by God, but by ourselves
and so we may commit evil acts.
	If God intervened to prevent this, our existence would be, at
least partially, deterministic, that is, determined by God.  If this
were the case there wouldn't really be much use in us being here.  Free
will seems to be something that is necessary to our nature and our
relationship with God.

	A larger problem, at least to me, is "natural evil", evil that has
no source in the acts of humanity.  Examples of this would be disease,
natural disasters and the like.  I am only aware of vague justifications
on this subject.  To be technical, acts of nature that cause us
suffering are not really "evil" in that there is no malevolent intent
behind them.
	I can't do much with this one except provide some questions that
come to my mind.  Would a world without these natural ills be possible?
(I know, "all things are possible with God"), but I mean would it be better
or worse for the development of us as individuals and a race?  Obviously
being instantly killed by a natural disaster doesn't contribute much to an
individual.  Would divine protection from such things somehow represent
an impingment on free action/free will?

Oh well, just my thoughts...

-Peter K.

------------
Peter Kammer               We are the music makers,
pkammer@ics.uci.edu           And we are the dreamers of dreams,
203peter@vax.stmarytx.edu  Yet we are the movers and shakers     --Arthur
BITNET: 203PETER@STMARYTX     Of the world for ever, it seems.    O'Shaugnessy
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Church Disciples of Christ?
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:26:29 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

sl313028@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Christ is ALL Dat) writes:

>In article <Jan.26.03.12.44.1993.13821@athos.rutgers.edu> russ@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>trying too hard. :) (don't get me wrong, though, I love him, and do know
>he's  dong all he knows to win members (maybe souls, the  church almost
>seems like their trying to meet a quota or something.) please, someone
>who has had some experience with this church or is a member, explain the
>rationale behind the "badgering".
>-jon madison
>jmadison@etsun.tech.iupui.edu

My sympathies to you for the "badgering".  I don't know that its
necessarily a denominational characteristic of DoC; lots of churches
have a bad habit of playing the "numbers game", as if having the pews
full automatically meant you were pleasing to God.  Attendance, is
after all, much easier to measure than such intangibles as Love, Joy,
Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and
Self-Control.

The (not-Disciples) CoC that I used to belong to did this too.  In
their case it was re-inforced by the attitude that they were the New
Testament Church(tm), and anyone going elsewhere was, at best,
practicing second-rate Christianity.  This is the model of Christian
unity which says: "We'll have unity just as soon as all you benighted
folks give up your own foolish ideas and come round to our way of
thinking"  *sigh*
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn

[Based on some other email, I now have questions whether the church
involved is really Disciples of Christ.  I believe it's one of the
<cityname> Church of Christ, and probably the original comment was
about "discipling".  The description quoted here doesn't sound like
Disciples of Christ to me.  --clh]
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Online bible
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:16:29 GMT
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman

you said:

>I made the connection but I got lost and I could
>not get anything but a help message. Would you mind telling me how
>to do to get the bible from Wais? I am not very familiar with computers
>and I hope you dont mind me asking this favour.

	Once you are on,  a listing of different sources appears on the  
screen.  You want to use the Bible source. Type in 30, the number of the  
source.  Then there should be a "keywords:" prompt.  Type in what you want  
to look for and it will search.  It then gives you a list of items found  
containing what was typed in at the keywords: prompt.  Select the one you  
want and that is it.

	There are several problems with this. I think there are a limited  
number of items it can locate at one time.  It only gives an exact match.  

I hope I helped.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan
From: jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Adultery, non-marital sex, and forgiveness
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:45:35 GMT
Reply-To: jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

This subject is too involved for me to get into it very far, but I believe
the key to the sort of forgiveness that would result in a continuation
of a marriage in which one of the people committed adultery is whether
that person repented and ceased the behavior and was desirous of repairing
the relationship (recognizing that some serious damage had been done).

I also firmly believe that forgiveness does not mean one has to accept
continuing poor behavior (of any kind) from unrepentent people.  Holding
someone accountable for actions doesn't mean they can't be forgiven,
but there is, in my understanding, a difference between a person who
says he's sorry and one who doesn't and keeps on with the offenses.
In the latter case, the forgiveness is in the heart and eliminates bitterness,
making the actual beneficiary the forgiver.  The unrepentent offender
is basically uninterested in forgiveness because, from his point of
view, none is needed.

I claim no true understanding of the concept of forgiveness.  The above
represents my interpretation of various Biblical lessons, but I am still
praying for more guidance.  This is one tough area for man.
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:09:42 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

The Moderator writes:
>
>[While science may not be the right venue to look at the existence of
>God, it may not be entirely true that it can deal only with repeated
>events.  Consider the current work on the "Big Bang" -- an event that
>presumably occured only once.  --clh]

While the Big Bang is not a repeatable event, the evidence that scientists
use to infer the existence of the Big Bang IS based upon repeatable
observations.  The same holds true for scientific conclusions about
evolution, or athropological conclusions about long-dead societies.  The
event in question does not have to be repeatable in and of itself, but the
observations that lead one to conclude that the event has taken place must
be.  Since all miracles to date have left behind no such evidence, science
cannot make pronouncements upon them, other than to say that such things
do not occur during the normal course of events as science knows them.

An interesting question arises from this discussion:  supposing that an
actual miracle was witnessed and recorded by a group of scientists.
Quite obviously, the event would not be repeatable, and any scientific
conclusions drawn would be based on the available recording, which may not
provide sufficient evidence to say anything other than "something really
wierd is going on."

IMHO, scientific arguments to prove or disprove the existance of God are
bound to fail, as science requires that it be able to empiracally (sp?)
test the subject at hand.  The implicit assumption in this is that the
subject is bound to follow certain predictable rules that govern its
behavior (quantum mechanics not withstanding -- although the exact behavior
of a particle is indeterminant, the rules governing the probability
distribution of its possible behaviors are not.)  The problem is that God,
as Christians concieve Him, is omnipotent, and therefore not subject to
ANY restrictions or rules.  Quite simply, there ARE no rules that govern
God's behavior, and thus, outside of a specific revelation of Herself to
the observer, science cannot construct tests for the existence or
non-existence of God and can therefore say nothing about it.

Science CAN, however, evaluate certain claims made about God.  For example,
if someone says, "God will bring about the end of the world on Jan 17,
1992," and this event fails to occur, then a scientist may say that a God
who would bring about the end of the world on Jan 17, 1992 does not exist,
and, given appropriate psychological research and data on the person, make
predictions about the veracity of other claims by the claimant.  However,
the only scientifically valid conclusion from the above events is that
the God who would end the world on Jan 17, 1992 does not exist.

Tom Ault
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christianity in Decline?
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:50:14 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jfc@nic.cerf.net (Co Ho) writes:

>2) If we talk about population of Christians, keep in mind that the
>world's population has been growing exponentially, therefore, that will
>make comparision with Christian's population extremely hard.

The number of evangelical believers as a percentage of the world population
continues to grow, the rate of increase is also growing.  (I think that
makes it exponential, or close to it.)
-- 
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
From: leonard@aix3090b.uky.edu (Leonard Lauria)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:27:45 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

pkammer@liege.ics.uci.edu (Peter Kammer) writes:

>In <Jan.22.03.55.40.1993.6114@athos.rutgers.edu> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:

>>Can somebody enlighten me on this question:

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

>	Simple question, complex and somewhat indeterminate answer.  The
>examples you present deal with evil of humanity, e.g. hatred, murder.
>Evil of this nature seems to be a necessary result of free will.  In
>other words our decisions are not determined by God, but by ourselves
>and so we may commit evil acts.
>	If God intervened to prevent this, our existence would be, at
>least partially, deterministic, that is, determined by God.  If this
>were the case there wouldn't really be much use in us being here.  Free
>will seems to be something that is necessary to our nature and our
>relationship with God.

>	A larger problem, at least to me, is "natural evil", evil that has
>no source in the acts of humanity.  Examples of this would be disease,
>natural disasters and the like.  I am only aware of vague justifications
>on this subject.  To be technical, acts of nature that cause us
>suffering are not really "evil" in that there is no malevolent intent
>behind them.

<stuff deleted>

I think that God allows the natural disasters to occur to help us grow.
Think of a forest fire.  It may kill 1000s of animals and burn 1000s
upon 1000s of acres of woodland, but look at the new life that springs
from it?  Some trees actually NEED the fire to spawn new growth.  If
you look at what happen when a natural disaster occurs what do you see?
The same thing.  Lots of destruction, and lives lost.  But, you also
see other people come to the aid of the survivers.  Perhaps its a way
of reminding us of who is most powerful, and that we should be there
for our fellow man.  Perhaps, if everyone were to live as he taught us,
we would be living in a world free from harm.

No, I don't think its right when a child is run over by a car and dies.
Or when one is killed in a flood.  BUT, as was noted above, God has
given us the ability to live, and make our own decisions.  If he were
to interfere then it wouldn't be much of a life.  He wants us to over
come the world, and what it has become.  He will help us and work through
us, but not control us.  

Leonard

--

===========================================================================
   -This space intentionally left blank.
From: ee91ajh@brunel.ac.uk (Funk Adelic)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Maya Angelou poem
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:42:29 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

I'm trying to get hold of a copy of the poem read by Maya Angelou at the
Inauguration.  It doesn't appear to have been published in the papers on this
side of the Atlantic.  If anybody has a copy of it, and it isn't too long
(I didn't hear it so don't know this) then would they be so kind as to post
it please?

Thanks.  Best Regards,

-- 
*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
*  _  _| _  ___   |_  _  | |_   Name: Adam J Holt                             *
* (_|(_|(_|( | )  | )(_) | |_   Subject: Microelectronics Systems Design      *
*   _________________________)	Establishment: Brunel University, London, UK  *
*  (__________________          Janet email: ee91ajh@brunel.ac.uk             *
From: ooops@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Confidentiality of Pastors & their wives
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:58:53 GMT
Organization: Mankato State University

A friend of mine is interested in finding some information on the subject
of "Pastors and Wives Confidentiality in the Ministry". 

Does anyone know where I can find information on this topic on Internet or
elsewhere?  Any help would be appreciated.

--PerryMadden
  OOOPS@VAX1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Non-Christian Christians
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:34:26 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Jan.20.00.09.29.1993.808@geneva.rutgers.edu> mayne@ds2.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:
>In article <Jan.19.01.30.39.1993.2424@farside.rutgers.edu> mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack) writes:
>>
>>I think there are people who "follow Christ" who have rejected
>>"Christianity."
>
>Thomas Jefferson, for example? Are you claiming that someone who
>believes only in some of the ethical teachings of usually
>associated with Jesus (which are by no means unique among religions
>and philosophies) but specifically rejects the theological
>dogma of Christianity is "following Christ" and might be saved,
>according to Biblical standards? Or do you have some extra-Biblical
>standard?

You might consider Matt 21:28-32, the parable of the two sons.  When
asked to do something, one said he would, but didn't; the other said
he wouldn't, but did.

Again, you might also consider "If you love me, keep my commandments."

It is what we do and are that makes us Christians, not what we claim.

[Not to mention passages like Mat 7:21ff: it's not those who call
Jesus Lord, but those who do the will of his Father.  The problem is
how to avoid ending up with "works righteousness".  I realize this
posting is probably not intended as a complete theological treatment
of the fate of non-Christians.  But there are implications you need to
think about.  --clh]
From: kene@acs.bu.edu (Ken Engel)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: School Prayer Poll
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:49:30 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

>Sure--under one of two conditions.  Either
>	1.  *I* get to pick the prayer....
>	or
>	2.  Every day a prayer is offered to a *different* god.  No
>	    repeats are allowed until *all* known gods have been
>	    covered.

What if someone's god is Satan? Would this be acceptable? If not, then we are
discriminating.

> Since Christians of all varieties claim to
>	    worship the same god, and that god is publically claimed
>	    to be the same for jews and Moslems as well, when that
>	    particular god comes up, a prayer will be randomly selected
>	    from among the various sects that woship him.

What if someone is Hindi or Buddhist?
My point is that there are too many different religions and gods to try to 
cover them all. Well, I suppose you could given there would be oly 30-50 kids
in a class, but if we try to make everyone pray to each god, there will surely
be conflict and adversity.