HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sueb@vice.ico.tek.com (Susan C Bergquist)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The purpose of meetings of the local church
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:55:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <Jan.6.01.42.35.1993.2696@geneva.rutgers.edu> abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail) writes:
>However... the idea of small group fellowships does not appeal
>to me, because it seems to divide the church.  If there is a
>problem in a local church with believers being distant from each
>other, it must be dealt with, but the best way of dealing with
>it is not to split up the church into small groups.

In his book "Prepare Your Church for the Future" Carl George points
out that, if we depend on the local congregation as a whole to meet
our needs for caring, community, nurturing, etc., there will always
be a limit on the size of the local church.  It's difficult for a
large church (more than 200 adults, say...) to keep track
of all its members.  While long-time members, leaders, and members of
established "groups" like choir, guilds, etc., will continue to feel
part of the fellowship, many members will not.  Small groups enable
large churches to continue to meet the needs of ALL members.
George cites as an example Paul Cho's church in Korea which has an
average attendance (old statistics and from memory, so beware)
of > 600,000.  He points out that members of this type of church
are required to belong to small groups AND to celebrate with the
congregation as a whole.  People generally attend Sunday services
with others from their small groups, so they enjoy "fellowship"
even when worshipping in a large congregation.

						Sue Bergquist
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Lindsay's Writings on Prophesy
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:37:56 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON

I would beg to differ with the statement that nobody who has seriously
studied the topic holds to pre-millenialism.  Large portions of
evangelical Christianity hold to it.  I would suppose that it is
rarer among the more liberal churches.  "The Basis of the Pre-
Millenial Faith" by Charles Ryrie is a good introduction.  It was
originally the thesis for one of his doctorate degrees, and was published
by Loizeaux Brothers Publishers.

I was not aware that Dispensationalism has been used to try to say that
miraculous gifts of the Spirit are no longer around.  I don't believe that
they are around, and I am a Dispensationalist, but I have never heard
an argument hinge on Dispensational understanding.  My understanding is
that many Pentecostals are Dispensationalists.

Shawn Abigail
abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:50:33 GMT
Organization: (The Afterlife of Gogol, Inc.)

In article <Jan.7.02.12.32.1993.6419@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
ummak027@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Anson Sen Sau Mak) wrote:
> I don't think God will give everything you need to you even though you
> pray hardly for what you want. It doesn't mean HE is not answering payers,
> HE will provide everything He want us to have. God know what we want even
> though we don't pray for, HE just ask us to pray because HE want us to
> totally depend on Him.

Just for your information, non-theists also pray, but then it's called
something like self-realization (or use any other non-defined term).
Contemplation is good for the mind, God or not. Last night I contemplated
how futile it is to show that God exists or not, for instance.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Usenix member # 6110.
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Thank God?
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:30:38 GMT

Suppose there are three men laying in bed. The first is
healthy, when he hears the alarm go off he simply gets up.
The second is strapped down. When he hears the alarm his muscles
struggle against the restraints but can't get up. The third is 
paralyzed from the neck down. He wills that he would get up,
but his body doesn't respond. 

Who is to thank for the first man getting up?
Who is to blame for the other two not getting up?

Jesus walks into the bedroom of the second man. He unbuckles
the straps and the man gets up easily. Jesus walks into the
bedroom of the third man, the one who is paralyzed. He heals
him with a miracle and the man gets up.

Who is to thank for the two men getting up?

Now Jesus goes back in time to when the paralyzed man is a teenager
about to dive into the shallow end of a pool. He causes the
man's mother to shout a warning and the man holds up. The man
is not paralyzed. Jesus returns to the present and the man easily
gets up.

Now, who is to thank for each man getting up in each situation?

Suppose the healthy man hears his alarm and decides it is more
comfortable to just stay in bed. 
The man who is released from the straps tells Jesus, "I can
still feel the straps, I'm not getting up." The paralyzed man,
after Jesus miraculously heals him, says "I've been in this 
bed so long, it's very comfortable to me, I don't want to get up.
Besides, I don't believe that you really healed me. If you truly
wanted to help you would carry me."

Who is to blame for each man not getting up?

I don't ask about reward or punishment, just credit and blame.
The punishment for not getting up is staying in bed. The reward
for getting up is being up and about.

We are given the power to get up, but it is up to
us to get up. Each man could say, "I don't have to actually get
up, it is enough that I can get up." Each man could thank God
for giving him the power to get up, and that would be right.
But each man has to get up. 


Chris Mussack
From: aslt@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: ? Yancey's _Disappointment with God_
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:20:01 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

I have picked up a book called "Disappointment with God" by Philip Yancey.
Anybody read it and have any thoughts on it?

Thanks.  E-mail replies welcome.

Lee
From: early@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Early)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: New Book
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:56:48 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

Religion and Suicide in the African-American Community
by Kevin E. Early
Forewards by Ronald L. Akers and Robert Davis

Suicide among African Americans occurs at about half the
rate with which it occurs among white Americans.  Why is
the black rate of suicide so much lower, particularly when
one considers the effects of racism and other socio-economic
factors on African Americans?  One answer that has been
offered is that churches within the African-American
community have a greater influence then among white 
Americans and that they provide amelioration of social
forces that would otherwise lead to suicide.

To date no other book has provide an in-depth ethnographic
study of the buffering effect of the black church against
suicide.  Findings from this book indicate that there is
a consensus within the black community in terms of its  
attitudes and beliefs toward suicide.  This important
book will be invaluable to sociologists and others 
studying contemporary race relations and social problems.

-- 
Kevin E. Early                     Tel.:    313-370-2961
Assistant Professor of Sociology   e-mail:  early@vela.acs.oakland.edu   
Department of Sociology                     early@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Oakland University                 FAX:     313-370-4280
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: CREMATION
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:31:46 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Jan.3.21.30.49.1993.28033@geneva.rutgers.edu> SECBH@cunyvm.bitnet writes:

[Quote from Steve Creps deleted]

>I think that what Mr. Creps says above may be the rule, though I
>wonder if there may not be additional considerations.  I thought
>that David Cruz-Uribe's quotation of canon law might solve the
>puzzle, but it doesn't seem to.
>
>My confusion is based on my involvement in a very distressing
>incident involving the Roman Church and cremation:
>

[Rather sad incident deleted]

This incident surprised me, so I went back to the books.  I found
the following passage from liturgical law (the decree implementing
the new funeral rites after Vatican II):

"15) Christian funeral rites are permitted for those who choose 
to have their bodies cremated unless it is shown that they have
acted for reasons contrary to Christian principles.  See the
norms in the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy
Office, de cadaverum crematione, May 8, 1963, nos 2-3.

"These funeral rites should be celebrated according to the plan in
use for the region but in a way that does not hide the Church's
preference for the custom of burying the dead in a grave or
tomb as the Lord willed himself to be buried.  In the case of
cremation any danger of scandal or confusion should be removed.

"The rites ordinarily performed at the cemetary chapel or at the
grave or tomb may be used in the crematory building.  If there is
no other suitable place for the rites, they may be celebrated in
the crematory hall itself, provided that the danger of scandal
and religious indifferetism is avoided."

I do not know what the current norms for the dioceses of the United
States are, perhaps they are as Steve Creps outlined.  

However, it is clear from this that the priest in question was way out
of line in his actions at the graveside.  If he suspected that the
norms of canon 1184 should be invoked to prevent Christian burial,
then it is clear from the above that the burden of proof lay on him.
Further, canon 1184 says that he should consult his bishop if he is
uncertain.  I suspect that this is a clear case of pastoral
insensistivity hiding behind a dubious reading of church law.  
Very sad.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: jumbo1!tes@vanbc.uucp (Paul Su)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Please post for me
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:38:58 GMT

Greetings fellow believers!

I would like to know if anyone has read Jum Runz's recent book,
"THE OPEN CHURCH", articles by Jon Zens in "Searching Together"
(a magazine), or books on the house church movement (such as those by
Robert Banks).  Better yet, if you're currently in fellowship in an
"open" church, I'd be interested in hearing of your experiences, etc.

A few of us, of ex-Brethren background, are in the process of
starting a house church.  Our experience in the Brethren assemblies
have been that though they *claim* to follow the simplicity of the 
NT in ecclessiological matters, staleness and legalistic traditionalism
are often characterisitic of them.  (I would agree with much of Nathan
Smith's analysis in "ROOTS, RENEWAL, AND THE BRETHREN" -- though I
wouldn't necessarily agree with all of his suggested solutions).

Hope to hear from some of you.

Sincerely,

Paul

P.S. - we were "forced" out of the Brethren assemblies because of our
       adherence to the "doctrines of grace" (i.e., Calvinistic 
       soteriology, though I don't like that term; for one thing,
       I've never read anything by Calvin yet, and what I do know
       about him and his beliefs, there'd be some disagreements.)
================================================================================
Paul A. Sue				tel: (604) 322-6410
Sovereign Grace Fellowship		fax: (604) 322-9515 (available in Feb.)
2142 E. 53rd Avenue			e-mail: tes@jumbo1.wimsey.bc.ca
Vancouver, B.C.  V5P 1X7			..!van-bc!jumbo1!tes
CANADA
================================================================================
From: ummak027@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Anson Sen Sau Mak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:12:33 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

I don't think God will give everything you need to you even though you
pray hardly for what you want. It doesn't mean HE is not answering payers,
HE will provide everything He want us to have. God know what we want even
though we don't pray for, HE just ask us to pray because HE want us to
totally depend on Him.

Just my opinion.
IN HIM,

Anson
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Seder/Passover meal/Maundy Thursday suggestions
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:09:09 GMT

On <09 Jan 1993 10:08> Dawn E. Bergacker said to All :

 DEB>My church (Presbyterian USA) is thinking of holding a Seder for 
 DEB>Maundy
 DEB>Thursday service.  I'm on the worship committee, and I'm 
 DEB>looking for
 DEB>hints on how to present a fun and meaningful Passover meal.  
 DEB>Does
 DEB>anyone have any experiences to share?  The Seder I attended 
 DEB>years ago
 DEB>ended with lamb stew.  Does anyone have a large recipe for lamb 
 DEB>stew?

I have seen (and used) a from of service published by the Roman Catholic 
Church for a Christian passover meal. It made several additions to the Jewish 
version, for example in the recital with the response "We would have thought 
it enough" it continues

.. and not sent his Son for us
We would have thought it enough
If he had Sent his Son and he had not been born of a virgin
We would have thought it enough
If he had been born of a Virgin and not died for our salvation
We would have throught it enough
If he had died and not descended into hell
We would have thought it enough
If he had descended but not risen from the dead
We would have throught it enough 
etc.

Unfortunately I can't remember the publisher. But check in RC bookstores.

 DEB>[There has been controversy here in the past as to whether it 
 DEB>is a
 DEB>good idea for Christians to have seders.  You might want to 
 DEB>consider
 DEB>how you would feel about a non-Christian group holding a 
 DEB>communion

Well it could certainly cause no more offence than Protestants holding 
communion services could cause to Roman Catholics, could it? Or Mormons and 
Jehovah's Witnesses calling themselves Christians ... there is a common 
heritage, and while some may argue that it has been come by illegitimately, 
I'm sure it wouldn't be a worse idea than the others.
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Lindsay's Writings on Prophesy
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:09:00 GMT
Organization: LA&W RR

In article <Jan.8.00.19.26.1993.2341@farside.rutgers.edu> jkk@aiai.ed.ac.uk (John Kingston) writes:

>1) Pre-millenialism - all Christians will be taken up to heaven before the
>"thousand years of tribulation" predicted in the book of Revelation. Lindsey's
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>2) Post-millenialism - all Christians will be taken up to heaven after
>enduring the 1000 years of tribulation
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>3) Amillenialism - there won't be a literal "thousand years of tribulation"
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm surprized our moderator missed this.  Every theology I've heard on
this (including Hal Lindsey's) refers to a 7 year tribulation followed 
by a millenia of peace in which Messiah Jesus rules.

[Our moderator is not very well informed about various conservative
theories of eschatology.  I understand that for many people the
distinction among various eschatological views is very important.
There are a number of important implications for theology and even
politics.  Unfortunately there's something missing from my brain that
makes it impossible for me to remember which one is postmillenial and
which one is premillenial for longer then 30 sec. after reading about
them.  So you shouldn't expect me to take a very active role in this
discussion.  --clh]
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: ***The Rapture Survey***
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:52:30 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

Hi I am doing a survey on what CHRISTIANS believe about the Rapture,
whether it will be pre- or post- Tribulation.

Please write to me and tell me your REASONS (as many as you have) for
your belief.  If there is sufficient response then I will post the results
up.

I  am only really interested to hear from those you have an opinion one
way or another as I am already aware of the major arguments for both.

Thanks

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
From: news@cs.ruu.nl (Six O'Clock News)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Sexism (was Re: Non-procreative sex)
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:03:10 GMT
Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

>>>>> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) (DS) writes:

DS>       And using the same logic, if a couple remains childless so that the
DS> wife can generally be known to be infertile, barren, or however this is to

I agree with this post, but want to point out that the above is a very
sexist biased view on childlessness. It can be the husband as well who is
infertile. Please don't blame the wife if a couple is childless.
-- 
Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: +31 30 531806   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   +31 30 513791   Internet:  piet@cs.ruu.nl   (*`Pete')
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Fundamental
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:30:09 GMT

>I'm a little confused. How can a fundamentalist be legalistic?

It's like the paradox of the sign that reads "Post No Bills."
Some people are legalistic about what is legalism.

clh comments:
> ... The term
> "legalism" is commonly used (though often not by those who do it) to
> refer to an approach to the NT that treats it as a source of rules.

To stretch this point into a (maybe) more subtle point, it's not
just using the Bible as a source of rules of conduct, but as a source
of rules of cosmology, I think I remember the term "propositional
truth." When people pour through the Bible looking for clues,
memorizing what they think are appropriate quotes they can
use to win an argument, they are being legalistic. When 
a good friend tells me that I must "accept Jesus Christ as my
personal Lord and Savior" and he tells me a specific prayer I should
say to do this, then he is being legalistic.

Almost all the discussions on this newsgroup are legalistic in this
sense, we are wondering what is the "legal" truth. I have no problem
with a kid mowing my lawn without a contract. But if someone works
on my roof I would probably want one. When the issue is
how we spend eternity then we definitely want a contract. We need so
badly for the deal to be spelled out in clear words exactly what we
have to do. One hears fundamentalists say they are assured of their
salvation, this is legalism in the sense of how one might say he
has the deed to his house: I have been assured of salvation, the Bible
is the deed, whatever it says is legal.

This problem is not restricted to fundamentalists. As a Catholic
I hear people talk like this all the time. I'm sure many people
would not think it's a problem at all. 

The real release from legalism is when we can accept God's handshake
without a contract.

Chris Mussack
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:31:00 GMT

[Several people contemplate the importance of the doctrine
of the Virgin Birth.]

This is an interesting discussion. There are other things in
Christian orthodoxy that seem extraneous to me. I think this
is because Christianity is for all people, i.e. some things
are siginificant to me, some things are significant to others.
It's like a super-mega-multi-vitamin, enough for anyone, more
than enough for most.  So, if it is important to you that God 
fulfills Old Testament prophesy, there it is. If you need
mysticism, there it is. If you need simple, shut up and do what
I say answers, there it is. If you need explanations for complex
paradoxes, there it is.

Of course I'm begging some questions: 
- Should we take what we need and discard the rest because we 
  don't think we need it?
- Should we "hold back" on complicated things because it might
  cause doubt in others?
- Is it God trying to be all things to all people, or people
  trying to force Christianity to be all things to all people?
- How come some people are not impressed with anything?

Chris Mussack
From: mos11@cus.cam.ac.uk (Mark Scase)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Quickverse for Windows
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:37:46 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

At the moment I am using the Bible concordance program Quickverse 2.0
(for DOS) produced by Parsons Technology.  I saw in the winter '92
Parsons catalog that Quickverse for windows has been released.

Has anyone bought it and if so, what do you think of it?  Is it worth
upgrading?  Also, how much does it cost to upgrade?

Thanks,
Mark Scase
-- 
Dr M.O. Scase,                     email:  mos11@cus.cam.ac.uk
Dept of Experimental Psychology,
University of Cambridge,
Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:10:20 GMT

On <09 Jan 1993 09:13> Martha Smith said to All :

 MS>i am more concerned about those who executed dodd or wanted his
 MS>execution ...  they need to forgive dodd and seek forgiveness for
 MS>their failure to forgive.
 MS>
 MS>note that bondi in her second book on the desert fathers makes and
 MS>interesting point on what forgiveness is that we are required to
 MS>forgive everyone.  it is not necessarily re-establishing a ruptured
 MS>relationship; it is at least no longer seeking revenge or wishing evil
 MS>for the one who committed the wrong.

I find this very interesting - could you tell us more about bondi and what her 
second book is called and who publishes it. Also, what is her first book?

If one is to generalize this topic, it might be interesting to read 
Dostoyevsky's novel "Crime and punishment", or a book by Moberly called "The 
ethics of punishment" (the latter I read a long time ago) Moberley is a 
Western theologian, and basically seemed to be saying that punishment is a 
kind of sacrament. As Western theologians sometimes define a sacrament as an 
outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, Moberley makes the 
point that punishment is an outward and visible sign of an inward and 
spiritual disgrace. Dostoyevsky in his novel says something similar, but from 
an Eastern point of view. 

It is interesting too that St Vladimir, Prince of Kiev, when he became a 
Christian in 988, immediately abolished capital punishment in his 
principality, against the advice of the Byzantine missionaries.
From: dyer@arktos.spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:13:02 GMT

Well, I am not particularly interested in shoring up
the side of the Catholics on NFP or birth control.
My only point is that the Thomist logic is rigorous
(a bit too rigorous, IMHO) and completely self-consistent.

Regarding your objection about NFP being "artificial",
I'd imagine that the argument would go as follows:

	It is morally permissible for a husband and wife to
	have sex daily, fertile period or not.  This is the
	nature of things, after all.

	It is morally permissible for a husband and wife
	to abstain from having sex, if they so choose.

	If they abstain during the woman's fertile days,
	NFP is accomplished without any other interventions.
	It is hardly a sin in the Church's eyes for someone
	_not_ to have sex, after all.

I admit this might seem to some like the modern
equivalent of a discussion of angels dancing on pins.