HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Anticlericalism (was Re: CREMATION)
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:45:33 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

>matter.  I'm not saying that this is a correct or sensible reaction,
>but I have definitely seen reactions such as leaving a church due to
>situations like the one described.  In several of the situations I
>have reason to believe that the pastor hadn't actually done anything
>wrong.  (I make no judgement on this specific case, of course.)
>--clh]

   As far as I am aware, this is pretty rare among Catholics.  I often
hear anecdotes of Protestants changing churches because of a negative
experience with a pastor.  However, the common Catholic analogy to
this is to change parishes (that is, start going to a different
Catholic parish/church).  A more common reason for Catholics to leave
the Catholic Church is probably that they are unable to live by some
of the more strict moral teachings, such as on divorce, etc.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:08:24 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <Jan.3.21.39.10.1993.28169@geneva.rutgers.edu> revc@garg.campbell.ca.us (Bob Van Cleef) writes:
>If it is immoral to have sexual activity "with the possibility of fertility
>excluded," then it is immoral to have sexual activity on any day when you
>know that the woman is not fertile. Under that rationale, natural family
>planning methodes would be as immoral as using artificial methods.

The rationale offered is that NFP doesn't involve imposing any
_artificial_ impediment to fertility, thereby frustrating the natural
purpose of the marriage act, or something along these lines.
That is, every sexual act is still open to the _possibility_ of
procreation, even during a woman's nominally infertile period.

If you don't have a background in Roman Catholic sexual ethics,
and understand the echoes of Thomas Aquinas in this dialogue,
this won't make any sense at all.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: baseball@catch-the-fever.scd.ucar.edu (Gregg Walters)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (and the Law)
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:13:10 GMT
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO

For the sake of argument, as if we don't have enough already,
let us assume that we live in one of the many states that do
not use capital punishment.  Suppose that there is a convicted
mass murderer serving a series of life terms with no parole.

Does Jesus command us to:

1) visit the prison and offer His joyous word of forgiveness
   to the mass murderer

or

2) get a gun, go to the prison, and kill the mass murderer.


I don't believe that the proponents of capital punishment would
actually choose the latter, yet if these proponents assert that we
are bound by God's Law to carry out such punishment, why don't
they accept the risk?  Why don't they act accordingly?  Is it
because they fear the likely resulting punishment by the
government more than God's?
From: jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Charles Williams
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:01:25 GMT

REXLEX writes:
> I like Charles Williams, the lesser known one of the Inklings.  His
> spiritual/thriller books either grab you or repulse you.  He was a RC, as was
> Tolkien, but seemed to have better developed theological positions.  Williams
> postition on prayer is much like the postions on puratory mentioned by others
> on SRC.  He seems to hold some kind of active/personal intersession by the
> individual in one's advocacy of prayer much like the classical RC
> interpretation on the sale of indulgences for those in puratory.

A correction.  Charles Williams (like Lewis) was Anglican; Tolkien was
Roman Catholic.  You're right that Williams believes that "bearing one
another's burdens" is to be taken far more literally than we usually do.
(You know us Catholics -- sticklers for literal interpretation.)  There's
an interesting passage in which Lewis discusses Williams' doctrine of
substitution, and ends up saying "I have reason to believe he was right."
I also.

> Again, if I remember correctly, CW had real problems in living out his life.

Yeah, so?  He certainly wasn't any sort of notorious sinner.

> Q.  183.  For whom are we to pray?
> A.   We are to pray for the whole church of Christ upon earth; for
> magistrates, and ministers; for ourselves, our brethren, yea, our enemies;
> and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter; but not for
> the dead, nor for those that are known to have sinned the sin unto death.

"Those that are known to have sinned the sin unto death"?  Just how would
you know that about someone, Rex?
----
Fr. John Woolley         For al so siker as In principio,
jww@evolving.com         Mulier est hominis confusio, --
                         Madame, the sentence of this Latyn is,
                         "Womman is mannes joye and al his blis."
From: psy3brp@cabell.vcu.edu (Brian R. Pike)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christianity is for Cowards!
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:11:03 GMT
Organization: Virginia Commonwealth University

Cowardly Christians,

Get off your trembling knees and face the world.  Stop cowaring
behind your fictional idol and CHOOSE to live!  Your christian lives
are so pitiful and empty, and without real purpose or direction.

Choose freedom by DECIDING who you are and who you WILL to become.
To be a christian is to pit yourselves against your human brothers
and sisters - US and THEM.  Instead choose WE, so that we may live
together in peace, not in the hatred that you have created here on
earth.

Brian
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Any knowledge on foundations of Al-Anon ?References: <Jan.8.00.16.23.1993.2309@farside.rutgers.edu>Distribution:
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:40:49 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab

In article <Jan.8.00.16.23.1993.2309@farside.rutgers.edu> jraja@vipunen.hut.fi (Jarno Tapio Rajahalme) writes:

   I'd like to know more about the foundations about Al-Anon teachings.

   I've read the '12 step program' they have and I'd like to know more of
   its origins.

Al-anon originated from Alcoholics Anonymous and shares many ideas, as
well as having a common sense of community.  Both are rather different
from some of the spin-off groups, such as "Adult Children of
Alcoholics", "Adult Children", and the codependency crowd in general.
Be careful to distinguish.  The goal of AA is to assist people to stop
drinking.  There is no other goal, and AA's limited spirituality is
not intended to be enough to build a life around.  (Many of the
spin-off groups try to do this, to somewhat disastrous effect.)
Al-anon was created for spouses and other close associates of
alcoholics, and uses a similar approach.

It's also important to know that by their own principles, no one can
speak for AA or Al-anon.  If you want to find more about either, you
can call AA in your local city.  

--
Michael I. Bushnell      |     Watch, for you do not know when the master of 
+1 617 625 4518 (H)     -+-    the house will come, in the evening, or at
+1 617 253 8568 (W)      |     midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning, 
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:40:57 GMT

In article <Jan.3.22.25.19.1993.28755@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> Augustine:  Sermon

|> changed in the case of man.  God is born.  A virgin becomes 
|> pregnant with man.  ....  She is now at the same time both mother and virgin.
|> ...  The virgin bears a
|> son, yet she does not know man; she remains untouched, yet she
|> is not barren.  He alone was born without sin, for she bore him
|> with the embrace of man, not by the concupiscence of the flesh but
|> by the obedience of the mind.

I'm sorry, but this logic *really* bugs me.

If sexual relationships within marriage for the purpose of procreation are *not*
sinful, than how does such a conception entail sin?  Why should a conception
in the normal way be any bar to being born without sin?

It is this sort of double-speak that makes me seriously question if the Roman
Catholic Church *really* believes that sex within marriage is truly good.

It seems to me that no matter how much they may claim that it is, this sort of
argument will continuously send a double message to their flock.
[Some of the arguments for a celebate priesthood involve the same sort of
ambiguity about married sexuality].


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: eng10524@nusunix1.nus.sg (RAMASWAMI VISHWANATH)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dodd and Gandi
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:56:05 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore


	This is exacty my qustion - what is the meaning ofthe fact that
presumably Gandhi would never go to Heaven just 'cos he never accepted 
Jesus . What then is the reward for all the unselfish deeds that he did
throughout his life ? He  will still go to hell just cos he did not do
what Dodd did ? This logic is perplexing and leaves me with very little
satisfaction in Christianity that has no room for rewarding those who
really were exemplifying and strived for the good of everyone ; rather
those who can 'repent' and accept Him as God can be ofrgiven totally ?
WHERE then is the incentive for people to be good rather than just use 
Christ as a crutch and go to Heaven ? Does this also not mean that
CHRISTIANS can be in a sense seen as selfish in that whatever good they
do it is boarne out of their desire to ultimately escape the dungeons of
hell rather than out of true need to be good to their friends and so
forth ?




	


: ---------------------------------------------------------------
From: tapvalli@sara.cc.utu.fi
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:23:43 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In article <Jan.7.01.13.41.1993.6018@geneva.rutgers.edu>, 
jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris) writes:

> Second, while the Law says we shall not murder, it does not prohibit
> all killing (i.e. self-defense, executions).

  Interesting enough, but in Ten Commandments (at least, in my version)
  it says 'thou shall not kill'. In my opinion, that sounds like very
  explicit way of prohibiting *all* killing, doesn't it?
  
> God says that anyone who murders shall lose his own life.  

  No, it was Hammurabi, who said this. Remember, "An eye for an eye"?
  Does your God speak to you like this often? I am really getting worried,
  because with your attitude we are soon re-employing witch hunts and 
  other interesting stuff from medieval age.

> We are expected to exact such punishments on those who are guilty.  

  We?? Don't include me in your blood sports:)

	 Merry Killings and Happy Holy wars, Tapsa

Sarcastic?? Who?? Not me!

[It's common for current translations to use "murder" instead of
"kill" in the commandment (e.g. NRSV, TEV, and I believe NJPSV).  I'm
not competent to analyze the Hebrew, but since other portions of the
Law mandate execution for some offenses, there's a certain
plausibility to the idea that judicial execution was not prohibited.
--clh]
From: Gene.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Gene Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Lindsay's Writings on Prophesy
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:17:49 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

John,

You need to make some further distinctions as regards the pre-mil view. The
classical pre-mil view, which is not dispensational, follows the Olivet
Discourse as the outline for eschatology. This view has been around a very 
long time. In fact, Justin is only one of many early fathers who shared this
view. This view see the Church raptured at the appearing of Christ at His 
return, which some now call the post-trib rapture view.

There are also pre-mils who believe that the rapture occurs in the middle of 
the 70th week.

BTW, Walter Martin was a classical pre-mil.

En Agape,

Gene Gross

Since I now work for me, I'm responsible for my own thoughts!!


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Lindsay's Writings on Prophesy
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:49:33 GMT
Organization: (The Afterlife of Gogol, Inc.)

In article <Jan.6.01.42.07.1993.2685@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
anderson@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Claude W. Anderson) wrote:
> 
> In the early 1970's, Hal Lindsey wrote many books on the end times,  
> including "The Late Great Planet Earth", "There's a New World Coming", and  
> "The Liberation of Planet Earth".  As a new Christian back then, I found  
> them interesting, and they challenged me to see the Bible as very
> relevant to our times.  I thought that he sometimes went too far in trying  
> to correlate Scripture verses with current events, but that the main points  
> of his books were good.

If I remember correctly 1984 was an important date according toe Hal. I'm
sure the books have some value, mostly as collector's items concerning
how hard it is to predict the future.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Usenix member # 6110.
From: jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au (Jim Garner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Charles Williams
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:58:44 GMT
Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz

Charles Williams was indeed Anglican. The only work of his I've ever
found is a play about Thomas Cranmer, editor of the first draft Book
of Common Prayer. The play is narrated by a skeletal figure called
"Figura Rerum". Can anyone tell me what this means?

-- 
Jim Garner B.Math (Newcastle NSW Australia) - jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au
From: jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:02:28 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

It is immoral for two people who are certifiably 100% sterile to have
sex. Obviously they would not be having sex for the purpose of procreation.
If so why?

curious . . .

john
-- 
John Nielsen   MAGNUS Consultant            ______   ______   __  __	
jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu         /\  __ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
                                           \ \ \/\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \
  Back off man, I'm a Scientist!            \ \_____\\/\_____\\ \_____\
From: rxm@vortex (Robert I McLachlan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Pacifism
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:58:09 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

A while ago someone asked for reconciliations of the existence of suffering
with religious belief. That's a pretty standard question and so were the
answers - as one poster noted "this is the hardest question we have to deal
with." Incidently, once on Joe Frank's radio show (kind of a monologue/
performance art thing) he phoned up a priest and a rabbi and asked them
the same question - made good radio.

So here's another question which is maybe standard but I haven't heard it:
how can the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" be consistent with anything
but a pacifist position? It sounds pretty explicit to me.

Doctrines, beliefs, anecdotes welcome.

Robert McLachlan
From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:13:41 GMT
Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

It is not difficult for me to believe that Dodd's conversion was
genuine.  Why?  Because when I first heard about this story, all
I knew was that this convicted murderer wanted to die in the same
manner in which he killed.  He made no excuse and didn't seek to
justify himself.  In short, I thought to myself how truly repentant
this person seems.  After this impression, I found out that he 
claimed to have become a Christian.  Thus, my suspicions of a truly
repentant heart were aroused before I was aware of his claim to
conversion.  Furthermore, the paper's report that he went to his death
quietly and without complaints. 

I know that some have claimed that Dodd's promise to go out and kill
again casts doubt on all this, but I personally think it was a
desperate attempt to make sure they killed him and to prevent them
from delaying or canceling his sentence.  It's not something that
a mature Christian would say, but that doesn't mean his change of
heart was not genuine.  


  
-- 
Michael
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:23:06 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

revc@garg.campbell.ca.us (Bob Van Cleef) writes:

>If it is immoral to have sexual activity "with the possibility of fertility
>excluded," then it is immoral to have sexual activity on any day when you
>know that the woman is not fertile. Under that rationale, natural family
>planning methodes would be as immoral as using artificial methods.

Also, it would preclude any sexual intercourse between a couple where one
or both are infertile. Which, because of the RC rules of marriage, would
mean that an infertile person could never marry, as they could never
consummate the relationship.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Apostle Thomas in India?
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:13:06 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

In article <Jan.11.03.45.56.1993.21274@geneva.rutgers.edu>, conan@beirut.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes:
| I am not aware of the latest archeological evidence, but I recall that
| there is good evidence that Christianity existed there before 300.
| More speculatively, Stanley Wolpert in _A New History of India_
| conjectures that there is some connection however, tenuous, between
| the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism (with its notions of a savior-like
| boddhavista) in the first century and Christianity.

There is much stronger evidence of the influence of Islam on Tibetan Buddhism
in creating a God-like Adibuddha; there is also firm evidence of the mutual
influence of Nestorian Christianity and Chan (Zen) Buddhism in China
From: ss6349@csc.albany.edu (Steven H. Schimmrich)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Topical Bible study via e-mail.
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:11:27 GMT
Organization: Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY at Albany


   Would anyone be interested in doing some topical Bible studies through
e-mail?
   What I have in mind is to get a small group of Bible-believing Christians
together who would be interesting in finding all scripture pertaining to a
specifically-chosen topic (over the course of two weeks, for example) and
then coming together to discuss it all via e-mail (over another two week
period).  Hopefully, we would all gain new insights on the specific topic
being researched.
   What I DON'T want is discussion about the validity of the Bible or the
existence of God, etc.  I want to do this from the perspective of born-again
Christians who believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  Please don't send
me any flames -- they'll be directed to /dev/null anyway.  If you do not
agree with this perspective then simply choose not to participate and allow
us the freedom to pursue our interests.
   My suggestion for the first topic would be prayer.  It's a big topic and
there is a lot of scripture pertaining to it.  I personally feel led to
learn more about this topic and even though there are a lot of books out
there on prayer, I want to know what the Bible directly says about it.
   If you're interested, please send me some e-mail and we'll take it from
there.  Thanks.

--
Steven H. Schimmrich     Department of Geological Sciences         "Non semper
ss6349@csc.albany.edu    State University of New York at Albany   ea sunt quae
ss6349@albnyvms.bitnet   Albany, New York 12222  (518) 442-4466   videntur."
From: allan@sunk.hc.ti.com (Allan Poindexter)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:02:52 GMT

Steve Dyer writes:

   The rationale offered is that NFP doesn't involve imposing any
   _artificial_ impediment to fertility, thereby frustrating the natural
   purpose of the marriage act, or something along these lines.

It would seem that Roman Catholics may resort to mathematics to prevent
pregnancy but not to physics or chemistry.

   -- Author Unknown (Does anyone remember who made this quote?)

NFP *is* an artificial impediment to pregnancy.  Just because the
barrier in time that NFP places between the sperm and the ovum can't be
held in your hand that doesn't make it any less real than the barrier in
space or viability that other methods use.  Since this barrier is
humanly contrived it is properly termed artificial.

   That is, every sexual act is still open to the _possibility_ of
   procreation, even during a woman's nominally infertile period.

If a _possibility_ is all that is needed to legitimize a method then
very few (if any) methods could be excluded.  If some of the more
enthusiastic proponents of NFP are to be believed some of these other
methods grant an even larger possibility for pregnancy than NFP.

Since I'm not RC I won't try to speak for the RCC but I will note that
Pius XI has been quoted as saying:

   Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act
   is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is
   an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who
   indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

Since NFP is deliberate and does frustrate the power to generate life it
is difficult to see how the use of it can be reconciled with this
statement.

tntigwi, 
dex
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:31:05 GMT
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman

My first post hasn't seem to come through.

In article <Jan.3.21.44.04.1993.28273@geneva.rutgers.edu>  
labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson) writes:
> I'd like some discussions on this....
> 
> If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to
> us automatically without praying for it??????
> 
> I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....??
> 
> Any comments, agree,disagree,don't know,maybe ??????? - jrl
> 
> --

	God knows what we both need and want. Why pray?

	There are many reasons we pray.  One is to communicate to God our  
needs and wants, and another is to humble ourselves by showing that we  
need Him. An often overlooked reason is for direction in our lives.
	People often confuse a need and a want.  I am guilty of this too,  
but people confuse what a true need is.  A good example is an automobile.   
Is it a necessity? often it isn't.  Many people can use public  
transportation, car pool, bike, or walk.  In many underdeveloped  
countries, walking is there only means of transportation.  Many of these  
people would gladly walk the distance to work for what many get paid in  
the first world countries.

In Christ,
Bryan