HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Rob.Burrell@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Rob Burrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Damnation
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:08:28 GMT
Organization: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

Hard to believe that so many people who actually read and research the
Bible still believe in a hell where people are supposedly roasted for all
eternity.  All the discussion on damnation really has me confused.

Christianity is not about getting saved from hell, its about finding life,
the only true LIFE, the life of the Father living in you, ie the Holy Spirit!

How many of you who have children will place your childs' hand on a hot
stove every time he does something wrong??  And remember, I am only
talking about a hand on a stove.  Would you throw your child into a tub of
boiling water?  The God I serve would not do that (my Heavenly Father).

Read your Bibles folks, in the Revelation, John speaks about both Death
and hades being thrown into the lake of fire.  Now tell me, is God going
to torture death as if it were a personage of some kind?  Is hades to be
roasted for all eternity?  It is true, the judgement will reveal many
things, but the penalty for sin is scripturally the "second death".  Not
some Dark Ages myth about roasting!


Rob Burrell
rlb6750@silver.sdsmt.edu
--
   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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: noonan@icd3.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Noonan )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God does exist! (Was Re: Non-Religious Practice)
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:54:29 GMT

In article <Oct.12.02.21.51.1992.19778@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
baillie@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Stephen Baillie) writes:

[Some insightful and objective commentary deleted.]

} My opinion is that the claims of the man called Jesus mark him as the
} God he claimed to be, or as a dangerous, possibly insane, individual.

Why do you, as a matter of course, ignore the possibility that 
Jesus was a very smart individual with a lot of good, but liberal
ideas?  I see no reason to assume he was insane, just a person
who wanted to change the society he lived in within the context
of his upbringing.

} I do not see that the latter possibility is consistent with what evidence
} we do have.

I very much agree.  From the very little evidence that is available,
there is no reason to assume insanity.  Obviously those in charge
considered Jesus dangerous, as all important and charismatic 
people who espouse change are considered dangerous by the
establishment.

} Of course, the accuracy of the Bible is called into question,
} but I consider it to be sufficiently verified by historical evidence to
} give considerable, if not final, authority to its words.

I would be interested in hearing some of what you believe to be
corroborating evidence.  What sources, other than the Bible,
discuss Jesus the man and which ones, if any, mention his miracles.
If this has been hashed out here before, I apologize.  Perhaps
a summary would suffice?  A bibliography of sources?

} >It always returns to faith, it would be much better for people to just
} admit
} >they believe in god for irrational reasons.
}
} That is, of course, based on the assumption that we do.  I do not accept
} that assumption.  Incomplete knowledge is by no means the same as
} irrationality.

Obviously, even if our knowledge is incomplete, you feel that you
have gathered enough knowledge to guess the rest and have decided
to believe in the Christian god.
In order to make a faith leap, one requires a place from which to
jump.  How did you find that place?  What led you there?  And why
is it that some people are never led to that place?  My questions
have a personal slant, as I have found no reason to believe that
there exists an all good and all powerful being.  And believe me,
I've been looking!!!  I admit that the "Problem of Evil" is the
big hurdle for me.  If you wish, I can restate it.  (I don't even
know if you guys have a FAQ dealing with any of this - I'm a
newbie, pure and simple.)

I understand your need to explain a First Cause, and therefore the
existance of "a god", but how did you come to attach a moral attitude
to that Cause, and name it "God"?

Again, I am new to this group.  In fact, this is the first time I
have even checked it out.  I thought it would be unbearably boring,
but the first post I read has turned out to be quite interesting.

-Mike Noonan
From: mib@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:40:18 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <Oct.8.01.19.51.1992.12864@geneva.rutgers.edu> jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:

   It's been awhile since I read Hawking, but it seemed to me that at least he
   realized that his physics was not an argument against the existence of God.

I finally read _A_Brief_History_of_Time_ (I'd been putting it off) a
month ago.  I was rather impressed with the reasonableness of
Hawking's theological musings, and find your comment quite accurate.

On the other hand, the Introduction by Carl Sagan demonstrated utter
cluelessness about the points Hawking made on the subject.  I've come
to expect that as par for the course from Sagan.

--
Michael I. Bushnell            Gaude, virgo, salutata Gabriele nuntio.
+1 617 625 4518 (H)      |     Gaude, mater jucundata Jesu puerperio.
+1 617 253 8568 (W)     -+-    Gaude, conresuscitata resurgente filio.
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     Gaude, tua sublimata prole plena gaudio.
25 Belknap St Apt 1      |     Gaude, sumpta et locata cum Jesu in solio.
Somerville MA 02144            Esto nobis advocata in magno judicio, O Maria.
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Created in his image?
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:53:52 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <Oct.13.01.33.31.1992.22065@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:

   The assumption is that human beings are summed up in their physical
   body.  THis is a wrong assumption.  Angels are created in the image
   of God (its in the Scriptures somewhere) therefore it would
   disqualify that definition.  

While I basically agree with REXLEX's anthropology and explication of
the "imago Dei", I wonder where he gets some of his stuff.  The
creation of the angels isn't in the Scriptures anywhere, nor is there
any description of their nature.  In fact, it was the question of
whether angels possess physical bodies or not (essentially) that was
at issue in the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"
controversy.  

I wonder why it is that some inerrantists feel it necessary to throw
in "its [sic] in the Scriptures somewhere" when, in fact, it isn't.
Doesn't that denigrate the very thing they hallow so much?

--
Michael I. Bushnell            Gaude, virgo, salutata Gabriele nuntio.
+1 617 625 4518 (H)      |     Gaude, mater jucundata Jesu puerperio.
+1 617 253 8568 (W)     -+-    Gaude, conresuscitata resurgente filio.
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     Gaude, tua sublimata prole plena gaudio.
25 Belknap St Apt 1      |     Gaude, sumpta et locata cum Jesu in solio.
Somerville MA 02144            Esto nobis advocata in magno judicio, O Maria.
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Relationship presumes existence
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:24:23 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <Oct.13.00.46.20.1992.21802@geneva.rutgers.edu> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>In article <Oct.12.02.21.51.1992.19778@geneva.rutgers.edu> 
>baillie@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Stephen Baillie) writes:
>
>>If someone can provide evidence
>>or an alternative hypothesis that makes more sense than the existance of
>>a God, then I must, to be honest with myself, accept that hypothesis.
>
>This is not a Christian position.  Christianity is about relationship
>with God.  You cannot possibly have a relationship, when you are willing
>to consider the non-existence of one party to the relationship.

This seems to suggest that Christians are forbidden to doubt.  I can not
accept this prohibition of logic applied to faith.  

In so far as I know anything, I know that I have a relationship with God.
God is real to me, as my husband and children are real to me.  But I
know that it remains a possibility that solipsism is correct: that only
I exist, and all apparent relationships are simply part of my own 
internal workings.  But if this is true, then it hardly matters what I
do anyway, so I find it easy not to worry about the possibility.  So,
I do not seriously entertain the possibility that there is no objective
reality.

But midway between solipsism and Christianity is an objective reality 
without God.  It is possible that all things that are attributed to God
are really explained by some other cause, and what appears to me to be
a relationship that I have with God is really an internal fabrication.
I can not deny that this is possible, becuase I think there are absol-
utes--God is either there or He is not, regardless of what I believe.
Does this possibility prevent my relationship with God? No, just like
the thought that I am dreaming my life does not affect my relationship 
with my husband or children--I do not give it more than a fleeting con-
sideration; nonetheless, the possibility exists, and I can not deny it.

And even Paul (ie Saul of Tarsus, not Paul Ward) could say that if 
there was no resurrection, then Christians are to be pitied more than 
all (contradicting, it would seem, Pascal's wager).

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The month for the Passover
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:21:29 GMT

On <05 Oct 1992 20:51> Selbyn Liew said to All :

 SL>"This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the 
 SL>first
 SL>month of the year to you." (Exod 12:2)
 SL>
 SL>The question is, it is evident that God shifted the beginning of the
 SL>year for the Israelites at this point in time; which month of the (old)
 SL>year was this new calender scheme implemented?  If you know the answer
 SL>do give me the relevant references.  I think it would be better to give
 SL>the answer as being "the seventh month" or something like that, since
 SL>that seems to be the popular way of defining dates in the OT.

The Jewish New Year is usually celebrated around 20-26 September today. If 
there was a calendar change at Exodus, then there must have been another one 
later on. 

It is also possible that "first month of the year" means that it is the most 
important month of the year. 

--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.5!Steve.Hayes
Internet: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: True Christians (TM)
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:13:05 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

>A true Christian is someone who follows Christ.  Most, if
>not all, of the people you're talking about are Christians in name
>alone, and not in truth.

Does you possess some "Christian-o-meter"; some special capacity to
determine whether or not someone who claims to be a Christian is or
is not one?  I think what most people mean when they refer to "true
Christian" (TM) and "Biblical Jesus" (TM) is really "what I define
to be a Christian" and "What I believe Jesus was".

Could we please give people the benefit of the doubt?  If someone
claims to be a Christian, and you think that they are not acting
as a Christian should, don't call them a non-Christian, or a nominal
Christian.  Talk to them.  Ask them why they do the things they do.
EVERYONE needs to grow closer to Christ daily; even the "true Christians".
From: cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:38:30 GMT

In article <Oct.14.00.31.28.1992.23598@geneva.rutgers.edu>, wheeler@edp.edsg.hac.com (Bob Wheeler ird) writes:
 
|> As an atheist you have your own religion.

In a word - nonsense!

|> 
|> You have a right to donate money to something that you believe in,
|> including non-profit atheist consciousness groups (e.g. M. O'Hare).
|> If, as per your personal beliefs, giving money to a charity makes the
|> world a better place to live in (e.g. Greenpeace, the Republican
|> Party, Little Sisters of Charity) then you do so and take a
|> subsidiezed tax break.  If you think your world is a better place to
|> live in by keeping all or most of your money, you do so.
|> 

I personally think that an institution whose primary goal is the 
propogation of a belief system (as opposed to demonstratably materialistic
charity) should not be a deductible contribution. This would exclude
contributions to both churches and groups such as O'hare's American
Athiests (as well as political contributions - are they currently
deductible?). [Btw, despite the debt we owe O'Hare for her courageous
stand in removing forced prayer from our schools, I believe her
organization is the athiest equivalent of some of seamier televangelists].
But that is a personal view and a policy matter. What I was more
interested in is how you reconcile "religious deductions and exemptions"
with the U.S. constitution. And I'm not really interested in re-opening
the argument about whether a "wall" between church & state was intended
or not - I'd like to hear how the latter reconcile the two.

|> Finally, giving money to a church is more than supporting the Church.
|> My church gives 10% of its donations to charity.  My church organizes
|> groups that work with the homeless and Aids victims.  My church has a
|> psychological counselor on staff for Teens to help them deal with
|> suicide, drugs, parents, etc.

I don't deny this, but I suspect that your church then greatly exceeds
the norm.

|> 
|> In many ways, donating to a Church is like donating to the United Way.
|> It includes many umbrella charities and ministries which get glossed
|> over by someone that doesnot understand the works.

The charities don't bother me, the ministries do.

|> 
|> 	Peace.
|> 
|> 	Bob Wheeler
|> 
|> [I am not interested in discussions here as to whether atheism is
|> a religion.  For this posting, it's sufficient simply to take the
|> first statement as meaning that there are also organizations for
|> atheists that are tax-deductible.  --clh]

"Catholics (Atheists) To Feed The Poor" should be deductible. American 
Atheists and the Southern Baptist's Cooperative Program shouldn't be 
as bad form (forced paym,ent to spread other's belief). Further, the
latter in my view violates the US constitution. (Hmmm, maybe I
could convince President Clinton to appoint me to the Supreme Court. He
could pull the old Bork/Souter move by first nominating Cuomo and
then slipping an unqualified peon -me- in)
From: dike@rs054.intel.com (Charles Dike)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Was Sign of Jonah / 3 days etc.
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:43:18 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Beaverton, OR

Just a comment on the likelihood of a 33 A.D. crucifixion: 
This is the one I prefer. REXLEX's comments were (to the
best of my knowledge) correct. But, to clarify, the month
Nisan would begin on the observance of the new moon not 
the full moon. I also understand that the observance of
the new moon on a day to allow a Wednesday crucifixion
has some degree of improbability. In defence of this position
I would argue that because we are not dealing with a
mortal man but the Messiah we can not safely apply the
laws of statistics. (We have a sample size of one). Some
of the characteristics of Christ is that He is pre-eminent,
the first-fruits, and the first-born. To me the event that
marks Him as most unique must be considered. I acknowledge
that this idea could cause some tension from a technical
view but I think it is necessary from a typological perspective.

If you are interested there is an article in the magazine
'The Planetarian' 19/4 (Dec.1990):pp8-13. Entitled "Yet Another 
Eclipse for Herod" by John P. Pratt. Josephus mentioned a
lunar eclipse just prior to Herod's death. The author shows that 
the best fit eclipse would have occurred on December 29, 1 B.C.
A very interesting point about this is that the moon rose in 
eclipse in the early evening. Pratt also deals with problems in 
dating Herod's reign and related issues. 

Finally, he proposes the Christ was born at the Passover 
season of 1 B.C. and discusses combatibility with traditional
Christmas dates. One of his arguments is that on June 17, 2 B.C.
there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus near the star Regulus
in the constellation Leo. The suggestion is that this conjunction
marked Mary's conception and got the Magis moving. The early 
Christian church also had a tradition that Mary's pregnancy lasted 
10 months. He claims this would put Christ's birth at about April 8,
1 B.C.

With the exception that he went for a Friday crucifixion on 
April 3, 33 A.D. instead of Wednesday (Apr 1) I think John Pratt 
pretty much nailed this cold.

Just out of curiousity REXLEX, have you considered the typology
of a Passover birth? To me, it explains the shepherds elegantly.
If you would like to, please feel free to email me. Also REXLEX,
if you have more stuff on typology, I am really interested in 
hearing about it. 

Cordially,
Charles Dike
dike@scic.intel.com
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Cell Group Churches -- contrasted with "normal" churches
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:54:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Oct.7.01.18.23.1992.10769@geneva.rutgers.edu> jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes:
>Here's a chart outlining some of the differences between cell group
>churches and traditional, building-based, program-based churches:
>
>
>        NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH            CHURCH OF TODAY
>        --------------------            ---------------
>
>Location
>        Meets in houses and buildings   Meets mainly in church buildings
>
>Size Of Groups
>        Small, intimate groups          Large, impersonal groups
>
>Activities
>        Daily fellowship                Weekly worship services
>
>Support System
>        Building up one another         Problem? See the pastor

...etc. (other characteristics deleted)

This is such a nice chart...how can one not just love it!  Unfortunately,
it is deceiving.  The title 'CHURCH OF TODAY' should read 'SOME LOCAL CHURCHES
OF TODAY'.  I read through the list of characteristics and found very little
similarity to any church I've ever been a member of.  There are many churches
that are independent local churches that have more in common with your list
of NT Church characteristics then what you describe under Church of Today. I
also find that some of the characteristics listed under NT Church are not 
necessarily true.  We don't know that the church at Corinth or Ephesus or
other areas were small.  In fact, they may have been quite large.  I think the
chart is probably written from the perspective of someone who has always been
a member of some large, staid denomination like episcopal, methodist, liberal
baptist, liberal presbyterian, congregational, etc.  I know of many small 
(and some large) independent baptist or presbyterian churches that are much closer
to the chart's NT church model.  So the local church IS alive and well today in
many areas...even here in Massachusetts, historically significant for it's
revivalists, currently significant for its lack of good churches.

Mark
From: hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (10-10)
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:02:25 GMT

Saturday, October 10:

     For it is the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"
who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge
of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ".  <2 Corinthians 4: 6>

[This is Ralph Reid's choice of passage, but my choice of translation:
the NRSV.  --clh]
From: krk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Kathy Robinson Krane)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: MEN > WOMEN  "...because the Bible tells me so..."
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:15:23 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

Some posters have asked for a postings from Christian women about the role of 
the husband in a Christian marriage.  There haven't been many answers, so I'll 
add mine.

I believe the the husband has the final responsibility for family decisions,
and that he must make these decisions in selfless loving way, as St. Paul
says.  I believe that the wife must lovingly submit to these decisions when 
necessary.  I also believe that this is not humanly possible, and that it
takes a lot of help from God even to approximate this ideal.  Men who are
egotistical, controlling or violent and women who are manipulative, mentally 
lazy, sneaky, or self-hating are not anywhere near it.

This belief does not mean that I think that my husband is always right, or 
that we never argue.  In fact, I think that argument is necessary to the living 
of the Christian role.  If I hide my upsetment over something, then how is my 
husband to discern what is best for us?  That does not excuse meanness or 
insults, of course.   Neither should I submit to my husband by committing 
an act that I think is immoral.

I have seen some posters speak of mutual submission.  I doubt that this can 
completely work.  What if, as happened in my case, one partner's career 
requires a move to another part of the country, while the other does not want 
to move?  If both parties submit, where do they end up living?  I think that 
even in a "perfectly" fair marriage, there would be resentments,  because we 
have a natural tendency to want things our own way.

I saw a poster ask why the woman should have to take primary responsibility
for the children.  Well, someone has to.  If in a business meeting, a needed
task is identified, but no one is told to do it, it doesn't always get done.
Everybody figures that someone else will do it.   There seem to be a lot of
"deadbeat dads" in the world, and a smaller number (it seems) of deadbeat moms. 
But if we throw out the idea the the woman has this responsibility, it seems to 
me that we will have many more deadbeat moms.  

As for other women in other leadership roles, such as in the workplace, I have 
no problem with that.  I have some female friends that I admire who are 
supervisors of men in factories.  It's a tough job, and I respect their 
determination.  As for some of the verses quoted that women should be quiet in
public, I take that as applying to the Church, specifically the Priesthood.
I don't believe in the ordination of women.

Kathy Robinson Krane