HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Ends justify the means?
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:29:31 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <Nov.10.02.30.12.1992.12697@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) says:
>
>I appreciate your sympathy.  However, my comment "spend eternity in hell,
>that will show God" did not spring from frustration and it
>was not an emotional response, but rather an attempt to show the
>ridiculousness of rejecting God on the basis of disagreements.

I would have hoped that you wouldn't have gotten this impression from
me. It's not as if I can see god looming over my shoulder or something.
I 'reject' the idea of god, if you wish to call it 'reject,' because
it hasn't been proven to me, not because I met him and I'm ignoring
him anyway, or some such nonsense.

>Some people reject God because they had bad experiences with Xians.
>The comment "spend eternity in hell - that will show them" would hopefully
>show them the riduculousness of their rejection.

It might generate a fear reaction in someone who is still uncertain, and
so you might terrorize them into returning to xianity. To someone like
myself, who no longer believes in xianity at all, it's merely amusing,
and indicative of the 'bad experiences' that reinforced my rejection of
xianity as a belief system.

>Many people I know were originally motivated to believe by fear.  They later
>deepened their belief with other more "noble" motives.  So I think that
>fear does work in the long run.

This is what I really wanted to address. Just as in the earlier postings
about the burning babies (which was simply ended--not resolved), you have
fallen back to say "the ends justify the means" again. That is essentially
what you are saying, isn't it? Or do you prefer to convert people through
fear? Your religious terrorism isn't going to work on anyone who thinks
it through. The only people who it could work on are weak-willed drifters
who aren't strong enough to ask for real proof, but will be silenced by
mere threats. Can you tell that it isn't working on me?

Martin Schulte
From: jeffries@iastate.edu (Anthony G Jeffries)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: NIV Bible on PC
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:30:06 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

I am not fortunate enough to own a PC, which I could then use most public 
domain and shareware Bible software on.  Instead, I have a Macintosh.  I 
would like recommendations as to what is the best Mac Bible software 
available, whether shareware, public domain, or commercial.  Thanks in 
advance.

-- 
Anthony Glen Jeffries N0NRO  ><>   Amazing Grace, How Sweet The Sound!   ><>
Journalism and Mass Communication student  Iowa State University  Ames, IA
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to 
save the world through Him." John 3:17 (NIV)
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: How do you choose who represents you at our nation's head?
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:25:06 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <Nov.4.00.32.30.1992.1014@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
do515127@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu says:
>
> It is impossible to rightly govern . . . without God and the Bible.
>   - George Washington

Don't forget to also mention, as you want to invoke the founding
father types as gospel, that they also liked slavery. And not
allowing women to vote. And basically allowing just the wealthy
to vote. Keep that in mind as well...

Martin Schulte
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: US presidential curse
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:25:44 GMT

On <02 Nov 1992 22:33> baresson@cbnewsi.att.com (5:7104/2) said to All :

 bac>Since the subject of US presidents is topical at the moment, it
 bac>is interesting to note the following. During last century a red
 bac>indian curse was put upon the US presidency, that those
 bac>presidents elected or serving in a year divisible by 20 would
 bac>not survive beyond their term in office.
 bac>
 bac>Before the shooting of Reagan a group of Christians heard about 
 bac>this curse and sat Ronald Reagan in a chair and prayed for him, 
 bac>breaking the curse in Jesus' name. The result: Reagan was shot 
 bac>but survived to outlive his term in office.

Now that sounds like it belongs in alt.folklore..urban

When was this curse put on? And by whom? And why? Why every twenty years?

And who was the group of Christians? Will any of them stand up and testify?

But if there's anything in it, it's a pity they didn't pray a bit harder. Then 
Ronald Reagan might have been a Christian rather than a follower of 
astrology. It's not too late to do something about THAT. He's still alive, 
isn't he?
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Lost Salvation
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:53:32 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Nov.11.02.56.48.1992.15023@geneva.rutgers.edu> tony@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Anthony R. Benitez) writes:
>Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is impossible for an Elect
>Child of God.  Don't worry.  The miracle is you believe!

Of course commiting an unpardonable sin is impossible for the _elect.
One important thing to ask is whether election means salvation.
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Church Knowledge of Nazi persecution
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:26:52 GMT

On <02 Nov 1992 22:33> Bill Gripp (5:7104/2) said to All :

 BG>As a result many  perished who might have otherwise survived 
 BG>had the
 BG>camps been bombed.  Let's face it, even such liberals as 
 BG>Roosevelt
 BG>didn't exactly care that Jews, as well as other ethnics such as 
 BG>Poles,
 BG>Gypsies, etc, were being exterminated.  Throughout recorded 
 BG>history, the

Just a small point, but an important one none the less:

Jews are "ethnics"?

In the New Testament, "ethnics" means NON-Jews ... it is the Greek
rendering of "goyyim", which in Latin becomes "gentiles".

Speaking of Jews as "ethnics" might be offensive to some Jews, and could
also lead to theological confusion.

Keep well

Steve
From: caw@gtech.com (Christopher A. White)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Power
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:59:40 GMT
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI

In article <Nov.10.01.57.10.1992.12377@geneva.rutgers.edu> mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack) writes:
>Some Christian principles that should not be in government:
>- mercy, sentencing determined by how much remorse the guilty shows.

Yes and no. Our penal system needs to be revised to exploit remorse as
a life changing experience.

>- equal pay, the parable where the farmer pays every laborer the same 
>	regardless of how long he's worked.

To me, this is not about equal pay but about individual bargaining (vs.
collective bargaining). I feel that this principle should be grabbed
onto and explored in our labor laws. In an age of collective bargaining
the individual has *some* degree of freedom. 

There is also a principle here about an understanding of 'fairness'. The
other workers felt that their pay was fair for the work *until* they
found out that somebody else was getting more. They were not measuring
on a scale of 'work vs. reward', but rather on a scale of 'my reward vs.
his reward.' This is wrong and has nothing to do with fair. It is an
interferrence in the free market. It is something which we all need to 
look at in our own lives, because it is a very un-modern way of thinking 
which we probably aren't used to.

Now, there are other issues involved in a real-world application. This
does not nescessarily apply to every business. The parable, however,
implies that the farmer was acting fairly and not trying to exploit
the workers. This is a distinction that needs to be made between this
parable and most labor disputes.

>I'm not comfortable with "value-free education" for elementary students.
>Young children learn behavior as well as facts in school. 

and should learn values at home. However, many do not, so should we
try to instill some set of values (running the risk that they are
the 'wrong' ones)? 

Rhetorical question, I don't have an answer.


Topher
-- 
 Christopher A. White                    | 
 caw@gtech.com                           | Free will is largely overrated. 
 GTech Corporation, West Greenwich, RI   | 
 The opinions expressed are mine alone   |           - Topher
From: phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Nudity - Why be ashamed?
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:32:01 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

Pardon me but isnt the body now sinful because of the sin associated
with it.  It says the flesh is sinful because it does not and cannot
know God as our souls do.  Perhaps thats the whole nudity thing.  Not
an answer just a suggestion.

-- 
"Is doggie heavan kitty hell?"
     Stephanie Phoenix(age 6)
={}={}={}={}={}={}={}={}={}={}={}
From: ggrieve@cbnewsi.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: British Israelites & Herbert Armstrong
Date: 13 Nov 92 05:30:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Nov.11.03.00.44.1992.15128@geneva.rutgers.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> People who are participating in this discussion may be interested in an
> article on page 57 of the 9 November 1992 issue of Christianity Today.
> 
For anyone interested, a booklist is available from the
British Israel Federation:

8 Blades Court
Deodar Road
Putney
London SW15 2NU

tel: 081-8779010
From: tony@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Anthony R. Benitez)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Lost Salvation
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:15:16 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <Nov.12.02.53.31.1992.17124@geneva.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <Nov.11.02.56.48.1992.15023@geneva.rutgers.edu> tony@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Anthony R. Benitez) writes:
>>Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is impossible for an Elect
>>Child of God.  Don't worry.  The miracle is you believe!
>
>Of course commiting an unpardonable sin is impossible for the _elect.
>One important thing to ask is whether election means salvation.  

Paul:
I would suggest you read carefully the 9th chapter of Romans and
the latter half of the 8th.  Paul carefully shows us that God
foreknew and predestinated a people (the seed of Isaac) to be
conformed to the image of his son. Then he talks of all the things
that can never separate us from that love. Jer31:3 "an everlasting
love"  If you an Elect, you are most definitly one of his chosen, and
one of whom he loved from before the foundation of the world, and
will love into eternity.  Sounds like Salvation to me.
AnthonyBenitez
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Nudity - Why be ashamed?
Date: 11 Nov 92 08:00:53 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

Leonidas Hepis (ba2cs252@troi.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
: Apparently, before disobeying God, Adam and Eve were both naked 
: and not ashamed.  Then they disobeyed God and so they became 
: ashamed of their nakedness.  Now... I see a problem.  Eve grabs an 
: apple from the tree and she eats it, and so does Adam.  If there's 
: anything they should be ashamed of, that would be their hands or 
: mouth - why be ashamed of their genitals which were to them yet 
: another part of their body just like their hands and feet?

There is a fallacy in your argument, in that you are trying to connect the parts
of the body that Adam and Eve sinned *with* with how that sin *affected* them.
The consequences of their sin included a loss of intimacy between themselves
and God (they hid from him), and ultimately between each other. Sin brings
shame, and when we are ashamed, we hide.

Because sexual intercourse is the most intimate act of which two people are
capable, it is natural that a loss of intimacy would lead to covering up sexual
organs. (For example, although I would not normally feel comfortable walking
around nude in front of a female, I have no problem in walking around nude in
front of my wife. This isn't because I think that my body is particularly
attractive, but because, within the context of our marriage, I wish to be
completely transparent -- I don't want to hide anything from her.)

Michael
-- 

-----
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

	And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
	Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
From: stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Power
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:20:17 GMT
Organization: ingr

Jeff Stehman writes:

>Spose it happens.  Christians hold all the authority in the United
>States -- they are in power.  More than that, they keep non-christians
>from holding certain positions or doing certain things or whatever.  My
>questions is, how do you then witness to these non-christians?  You would
>be witnessing from a position of power where the power is based upon your
>Christianity.  I have difficulty imagining that being very successful.  I
>suspect that most converts would be converting to power, not to Christ.  
>And people who rebel against power would be pushed away from Christianity.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ever hear of the U.S.S.R.?  I believe this is precisely why "godless"
communism took control from the "church" state.  How sad it is when 
so-called Christians cause a whole nation to turn from our Lord Jesus!!

Todd Stevens
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com
From: malton@qucis.queensu.ca (Andrew Malton)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why is not everyone like Jesus? (was: Re: Free Will and Evil)
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:20:08 GMT
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston

In article <Nov.5.02.22.47.1992.2968@geneva.rutgers.edu> bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes:

>Jesus is the son of God. Therefore He does not have the sinful nature
>we have. We are only human, He was human _and_ God at the same time.
>That is why He could live on this earth for some 30 years without sin.
>

It seems to me that the true Christology says: Jesus is the Son of God,
and also a Human Being. In Him the two natures, namely the human created
nature and the divine eternal nature, are combined with perfect agreement
of will but without any confusion or change. This is incompatible with a
view of Jesus which makes it `easier' for Him to avoid sin than for us.
In fact, Jesus was able to avoid sin completely by perfect union of his
human nature with his divine nature.  _And this is no more or less than
what God the Father asks of us._

>
>Everyone is not like this because everyone else have the sinful nature
>of Adam. I should really want to be like this, but I know that I am
>going to sin. Not the big sins like theft or murder, but any little
>sin is just one to much.

Let us, indeed, `want to be like this'! We can, now, because the spirit of
Christ which is in us through baptism means that we will be like Him.
But `whatever was not nailed to the Cross was not saved', so let's not imagine
that something natural to ourselves but not to Christ makes it impossible for
us to avoid sin but possible for Him.

Praise be to the Name of our God now and ever and to the age of ages!
A Malton
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Santeria and animal-sacrifice
Date: 9 Nov 92 06:09:28 GMT

In <Nov.8.01.04.45.1992.8552@geneva.rutgers.edu>
scott@petros.b17a.ingr.com writes:


>    Santeria's "right" to perform animal sacrifices 

>Yesterday's news had an obscure article about the Supreme Court's 
>hearing on Santeria's "right" to perform animal sacrifices during 
>births, deaths, marriages, healing and initiation rites.

[...]

>Praise God for the stance by Hialeah, FL. How can a God fearing country
>stand for such "twits" against God's mandates? As Christians, how can we
>allow this type of judgement in our courts?

>Regards,

>D. Scott Stevens
>Huntsville, AL

I must have missed something.  The tenor of the post appears to strongly
disagree with Santeria's performance of animal sacrifice.  But I think
some people are projecting their distaste onto God.  One gathers that
Mr. Stevens feels "God's mandates" are against animal sacrifice.

I'd be very interested in his basis for this claim.  The Old Testament
most certainly does NOT contain such a prohibition; very much to the
contrary, it prescribes the rituals for them.  In the New Testament
we find Jesus objecting not to the animal sacrifice in the temple but to
the commercialization of it.  We also find the Apostles frequenting the
Jerusalem temple.  While the Epistles certainly speak of the temple
sacrifices as being superceded, I don't believe any of them in their
natural sense can be held to be prohibitions of animal sacrifice.

Then perhaps our moderator is correct and our legs are being pulled
here.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Power
Date: 11 Nov 92 08:00:38 GMT

On <08 Nov 1992 09:13> Jeff Stehman said to All :

 JS>Spose it happens.  Christians hold all the authority in the United
 JS>States -- they are in power.  More than that, they keep non-christians
 JS>from holding certain positions or doing certain things or whatever.  My
 JS>questions is, how do you then witness to these non-christians? You would
 JS>be witnessing from a position of power where the power is based upon your
 JS>Christianity.  I have difficulty imagining that being very  successful. I
 JS>suspect that most converts would be converting to power, not to Christ.  
 JS>And people who rebel against power would be pushed away from  
Christianity.
 JS>I feel that, in order to witness effectively, we must approach 
 JS>others from
 JS>a position of equality or subservience.

It's been tried before. In Britain atheists could not be members of 
parliament until around the 1870s. Methodists and Roman Catholics could not 
before the 1830s. 

Check in your church history for what happened in the fourth century, when 
Christianity went from being unlawful, to being tolerated, to being the 
most-favoured religion, to being the only legal religion in the Roman Empire 
- it happened within three generations, and in most countries in Europe 
things stayed that way.

Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 

Look at the position of Christians in Muslim countries. 

Is that what we want? 

 JS>I would like to hear the opinions of others on this matter, 
 JS>both from
 JS>those who believe that putting Christianity in power (not 
 JS>Christians, but
 JS>Christianity) would be a Good Thing, and any others who believe 
 JS>that it
 JS>would be a Bad Thing.

I believe it would be a Bad Thing, because it's been tried before and it 
didn't work.
From: ba2cs252@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Leonidas Hepis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Original sin or 'sin' ?
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:23:23 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

The original 'sin' paradox, in the words of Frank R. Zindler:

"We are told that the first humans committed an act of 
disobedience BEFORE they knew the meaning of good and evil.  
Nevertheless, they were punished for their deed.  Not only 
that, but ALL THEIR DESCENDANTS were held accountable and 
were to be punished as well"

Examples of the punishment are: "I will greatly multiply thy 
sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall bring forth 
children;  and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he 
shall rule over thee". "..., cursed is the ground for thy 
sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy 
life.  Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to 
thee; and thou shall eat the herb of the field;  In the 
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return 
unto the ground".

Foote and Ball say : "Why should eating an apple condemn all 
mankind?  How could Adam and Eve be morally responsible and 
commit SIN when they were ignorant of the distinction 
between good and evil till they had acquired the knowledge 
by eating the magic fruit?"


Joseph H. Buehler writes regarding the first sin:

>It was disobedience

Disobedience was not more evil to Adam and Eve than 
obedience was.  I don't see how you could blame and punish a 
baby for pressing the red instead of the green button when
it is unable to tell the difference between the two and 
unable to understand their results.

The Fall was too much of a punishment for doing the wrong 
thing, when God himself made it so that A&E couldn't tell
what the wrong thing was.

-leo
From: mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com (Wanda L McCrae)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Nudity - Why be ashamed?
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:11:37 GMT
Reply-To: mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com
Organization: General Electric

In article 16933@geneva.rutgers.edu, phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman) writes:
~Pardon me but isnt the body now sinful because of the sin associated
~with it.  It says the flesh is sinful because it does not and cannot
~know God as our souls do.  Perhaps thats the whole nudity thing.  Not
~an answer just a suggestion.

That is an interesting interpretation of that scipture.  I have never
heard that before.

Personally, I didn't interpret the scriptures that say the flesh
is sinful to mean that the body itself is sinful.  "The flesh" could
also be another way to reference our will.  We will to do the things
that God does not want us to do, and that never changes.  That is how
we are tempted.

If our bodies were sinful, Christ would have been sinful.  Since
Christ was without sin and he was human, I don't know if we can say that our bodies
are sinful.

---
______________________________________________________________________
Wanda L. McCrae            | "Free your mind and the rest will follow.
mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com  |  Be color-blind.  Don't be so shallow!"
                                 - En Vogue
From: stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Original sin or 'sin' ?
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:01:22 GMT
Organization: ingr

leo writes:
>
>The Fall was too much of a punishment for doing the wrong 
>thing, when God himself made it so that A&E couldn't tell
>what the wrong thing was.

But you are equating the conception of "right and wrong" with that of
"good and evil".  I get a clear impression from reading the Fall that 
Adam and Eve in their innocence were capable of knowing right from wrong
and, therefore, capable of being tempted.
  
God clearly instructs them in what is right (avoiding the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil) and they clearly understand the consequences
(death) if they do the wrong thing (eat of the tree).  But A&E are not
yet consciously aware of the good/evil battle being waged between their
God and Satan who, in such pride and rebellion, wishes to set himself 
up as God.  

This is Satan's trump card of temptation (pride - the ultimate sin/evil/
rebellion and separation from God), and this is what leads to our ultimate
knowledge of good and evil.  I believe God saved Adam and Eve from an 
eternal existence similar to Satan's by expelling them from the Garden at
this time.

Todd Stevens
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com