HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bacon's "Cross Clauses"
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:55:20 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


               BACON'S "CROSS  CLAUSES"
                     by Ken Miner

     (1) Those who are not for us are against us.
     (2) Those who are not against us are for us.

     (1) and (2) entail, it seems, each other by modus
tollens.  Thus they are synonymous.  Yet it seems they
are incompatible, as naturally understood, since each
takes a different and opposing stance toward the
uncommitted. The stance of (1) is that the uncommitted
are against us, while the stance of (2) is that the
uncommitted are for us.
     "Those who are not for us" and "Those who are not
against us" both refer to the uncommitted in different
ways; the first may be taken to include some who are in
fact against us, but then it is empty to state this; the
same holds for the other group referred to.
     This is a puzzle: see in Bacon's _Essays_ (III Of
Unity in Religion) where he calls the two "cross clauses"
and expounds them in a not wholly clear way.  In Matthew
xii.30 and Luke xi.23 the saying follows the story in
which Jesus is accused of casting out demons by the
prince of demons.  Here it is phrased "not
with...against."  In Mark ix.40 and Luke ix.50 it follows
the story  (curiously also involving demons) in which
Jesus' disciples object to others casting out demons in
Jesus' name: here it is phrased "not against...for."  One
problem is that it is hard to relate the sayings to the
stories.  Another is that what *follows* the sayings may
be relevant.
     The logical problem is of course that the two
variants of the saying describe opposite and seemingly
incompatible ways of regarding the uncommitted.  And note
that in Luke we have both variants two chapters apart.
     Bacon *may* be proposing an answer based on the fact
that the two variants are used with regard to different
events--but this is not much help unless the relvance of
the saying to the events can be ascertained.


	<miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
From: jsharp@axion.bt.co.uk (Jonathan Sharp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist?  And proof of existence!
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:55:52 GMT
Organization: BT Laboratories

In article <Aug.19.00.11.04.1992.14382@athos.rutgers.edu>,
rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele) writes:
> I paraphrase from memory:
> 
> o Given infinite time, all possible configurations of things will
> occur.
> o One possible configuration of things is that nothing exist.
> o Having once occurred, nothing else could ever exist afterward.
> o Things exist, therefore time and things had a beginning and are
> finite.


May I suggest a book called "A brief history of Time" by Stephen Hawkins.
It has been out a couple of years ago and seeks to address these very issues.
He is not a Christian but a well respected Astonomer and Physicist.  His
book attempts explore the origins of the universe from a scientific
view point but makes constant reference to God, and his possible existance
in the light of his discoveries.  I think the book has enjoyed far more
popularity than it merits - perhaps it is the man himself that attracts much
of the interest, but that said, for those of you interested in this subject
it is a must read....

God bless,

Jonathan.
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 17 Aug 92 06:08:11 GMT
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University

Scott Mayo proposed a fairly traditional definition of Christian:
>I have always believed that a Christian is a person who has taken Jesus as
>his personal saviour. 
Mary Kuhner reported
>a suspicion that 'personal' was being used to deny the necessity of the
>Church.  This may be the problem word for many; it's not present in
>clh's alternative phrasing, which might therefore be better.

How about a less subjective.:  A person whose heart has been regenerated by 
the Holy Spirt and whose life bears evidences of the change by his belief 
upon Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord, his love of others, and his works 
worthy of repentance, and his subjection to his brethren in the Lord.

--
Bill Chapman <BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>   (601) 325-2042
Computing Consultant <wcc1@Msstate.bitnet> P.O. Box 1262
Dept. of Housing & Residence Life          Mississippi State, MS  39762
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God's influence
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:30:57 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Loren Sanders (REX) and Scott Mayo have written some excellent
replies for Liang-Wen Chang or anyone searching for answers to
God's existence and influence. Thanks guys, that was good stuff.

Scott said something and I'm curious to know what he had in mind
at the time he wrote the following:

smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo) writes:
>The Bible is not difficult to read. At least the New Testament isn't.
>Jesus spoke very simply, very directly. He taught that man is sinful,
>but could be forgiven. He taught that he offered the forgiveness of God.
>He taught some simple morality. I don't think Christians *have* to
>read between the lines to be saved, but I do admit that a lot of
>Christians seem to like reading between the lines. I say this to our shame.

Scott, I was wondering if you could expand on your thoughts regarding
Christians reading between the lines. What do you consider reading
between the lines? Were there specific issues you had in mind? Why do
you think some Christians do this?

I'm interested in hearing what Scott was thinking and what anyone
else considers reading between the lines, specific issues relating
to reading between the lines, and why you think some Christians do 
this.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (8-13)
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:08:50 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Thursday, August 13:

     Let us consider one another to incite to love and fine works, not 
forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, 
encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day 
drawing near.  <Hebrews 10: 24, 25>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about St. Laurence
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:41:20 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Aug.19.00.11.13.1992.14397@athos.rutgers.edu> conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes:

   companions.  Lawrence's tomb is located in the field of Verano near
   the Via Tiburtina where subsequently Constantine the Great built a
   basilica.  Devotion to St. Lawrence was widespread by the 4th
   century."

St. Lawrence has traditionally been one of the saints most venerated
locally in Rome.  His main church is one of the 7 major basilicas, for
which there is/was a plenary indulgence if you visit all 7 in one day.
His name is in the canon of the traditional Mass, if memory serves me
correctly.  That's quite an honor.

   I don't know for sure, but I presume that early French explorers
   named the river after St. Lawrence.  It was the custom at that
   time for Catholic explorers to name locales after saints found in
   the calender of saints--thus California has Los Angeles (the angels),
   San Francisco (St. Francis), etc.

Los Angeles is actually named after our Lady.  The full name was
Nostra Senora Regina de los Angeles de Portiuncula (approximately -- I
don't speak Spanish).  In English, that's "Our Lady Queen of the
Angels, of Portiuncula."  The Portiuncula part comes from the church
that was St. Francis's main church.  The basilica in Assisi is
currently built around it.  The name of the Californian city was
undoubtedly picked by the Franciscan missionaries who evangelized in
California.
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Blasphemy
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:31:40 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

>In article <Aug.12.03.12.24.1992.25322@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>>(Paul Hudson Jr) notes:
>>
>> It is possible to speak evil of the Holy Spirit just as it is possible
>> to speak against Christ.  To speak evil of the Son of Man is forgivable.
>> But not so when the blasphemy is against the Holy Spirit.  It is possible
>>
>>Why do you suppose this is? Also, is that the one "unforgiveable" sin?

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit's job (in relation to unbelievers) is 
to testify to the truth of the gospel and to Jesus.  To blaspheme the Holy 
Spirit, therefore, would be reject the gospel and Jesus.  Thus, it is 
unforgivable.  That's also why is would be the ONLY unforgivable sin.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Blasphemy
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:12:27 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Aug.12.03.12.24.1992.25322@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(Paul Hudson Jr) notes:
>
> It is possible to speak evil of the Holy Spirit just as it is possible
> to speak against Christ.  To speak evil of the Son of Man is forgivable.
> But not so when the blasphemy is against the Holy Spirit.  It is possible
>
>Why do you suppose this is? Also, is that the one "unforgiveable" sin?

That is what Christ said.  I do not know the exact verse reference right off
hand but it is somwhere around matthew 12:31 or so.  The Lord said that 
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was unforgivable.

Link Hudson.
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ARE THERE ANY CHRISTIAN GIFS OUT THERE?
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:47:49 GMT
Organization: none

There are now a number of GIF format images and other things on an
email archive server that I maintain.  Send mail to

	catholic-archives@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us

with "help" in the body of the message to get instructions.  Note that
there is *no* ftp access to sarto; you can only get at the archives by
email.

Here's a list of interesting things in the server at the moment:

bytes  modified file
------ -------- --------------------
426697 08/11/92 bw-pictures/St-Pius-X/Patriarch-of-Venice.gif
 11595 08/13/92 catholic-encyclopedia/b/brethren-of-the-lord
509194 08/11/92 color-pictures/our-lady/baroccio/nativity.gif
386716 08/11/92 color-pictures/our-lady/books-of-hours/coronation.gif
211306 08/10/92 color-pictures/our-lady/ferruzzi/strada.gif
138478 08/10/92 color-pictures/our-lady/fra-angelico/visitation.gif
498011 08/10/92 color-pictures/our-lady/fra-angelico/way-of-cross.gif
431878 08/11/92 color-pictures/our-lady/ghirlandaio/visitation.gif
308197 08/11/92 color-pictures/our-lady/murillo/immaculate-conception.gif
331673 08/13/92 color-pictures/our-lady/our-lady-of-guadalupe.gif
217402 08/10/92 color-pictures/our-lady/velasquez/coronation-detail.gif
596707 08/10/92 color-pictures/our-lady/velasquez/coronation.gif
291530 08/13/92 color-pictures/our-lord/fra-angelico/entry-to-jerusalem.gif
421371 08/13/92 color-pictures/st-clare/martini/st-clare-detail.gif
382441 08/13/92 color-pictures/st-clare/martini/st-clare.gif
407640 08/13/92 color-pictures/st-francis-of-assisi/cimabue/st-francis.gif
333524 08/13/92 color-pictures/st-genevieve/maillot/procession-of-her-relics.gif
396550 08/11/92 color-pictures/wise-men/books-of-hours/wise-men-adore.gif
347741 08/11/92 color-pictures/wise-men/books-of-hours/wise-men-meet.gif

I will be scanning more as time permits.
From: Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Paul, Could he be wrong?
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:19:14 GMT

[this is a condensing of a few articles that I submitted]

Ahmad,

First a question in regards to some of what you said about Paul.  You seem
to think that Paul redefined sin and in some sense made previous sins now
ok.  Where do you find this in Paul's thought?

Second I have some comments on what you said concerning the importance of
works.  You bring up several things that I am only now coming to grips
with.  I agree with some of what you said, but you seem to indicate that
salvation is by faith and works.  To this I must disagree.  The only way
we can be saved and enter into heaven and take part in the new earth is
through the power of God.  The way this power is manifested in the
believers life is through our acceptance on faith.  Now come my
qualifications that take account of the things you bring up.  This faith
is not just the acceptance of Jesus as savior, but also as Lord.  As Lord
he has claims to my conduct.  Under his lordship and by his Spirit, I am
able to preform works pleasing to God.  (At this point it is interesting
to note how all the examples of faith in Hebrews are believers preforming
works) I show forth a living faith of which I believe James was speaking. 
I am producing the fruits the Spirit.  In judging all God will look to our
works and as such be able to tell if we have the living faith or not.  To
those who have it he brings into his kingdom.  To those who do not, then
they receive destruction.  Now as to what God will use to judge us, I am
still trying to figure this part out.  At the same time the Bible speaks
to judging us by the truth we have been exposed to and our reaction to it,
it seems to speak of the law as involved. 

Third I am curious as to why you felt that the 'least in the kingdom of
heaven' comment referred to those cast in hellfire?  For myself it seems
that it is signifcant that it says those who break the law and teach
others to do so "will be CALLED least in the kingdom of heaven."  The
usage of called indicates something along the lines of a name like in Luke
10:39 ("...she had a sister called Mary, which...").  This could indicate
evidence for your viewpoint.

God bless you,
"Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sola Fide & James 2: 24
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:43:08 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Aug.14.03.08.46.1992.27962@athos.rutgers.edu>, eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco) writes:
>eje> - How do evangelical Protestants justify (unintentional pun)
>eje> their "justification by faith alone" teaching when James directly
>eje> and explicitly contradicts it?
>
>eje> - How is it that even after 400 years, the word "alone" remains
>eje> (in people's minds) right where Luther added it, ignoring the
>eje> fact that Paul never said we were justified by faith alone, only
>eje> that we were justified by faith?
>
>eje> - How can an evangelical in conscience rally around a slogan that is
>eje> patently contrary to Scripture?

If I may be allowed to put forth my two cents...

James is not a book of theology!  Take out the few verses alluded to above,
and the entire book is all about relating one's faith to everyday life.  For
example, if we have faith then we should not show favortism.  Hence, the
verses about faith and works are merely statements by the author of the
intent of his letter:  our faith is worthless in our lives if it does not
bring forth works.  That's all.  There is no contradiction because Paul and
James are talking about two seperate items.  They agree on what James says
(Romans 6, for example).  If we want theologic statements about
salvation, we must turn to Jesus (in John) or Paul (in Romans and Galatians).
If we want practical statements of how our faith relates to life, we turn
to Jesus (in all the gospels) or James.

Just my humble opinion...

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: mgrmdk@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Fasting
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:35:04 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

In article <Aug.20.02.04.53.1992.20862@athos.rutgers.edu>  
chawdry@orange.cis.ohio-state.edu (rehan nisar chawdry) writes:
> [Someone whose name is unclear because of multiple widgets
> >emphasizes one thing: NEVER FAST WITHOUT EXPERT SUPERVISION.  This can  
be 
> >your priest or spiritual director (assuming they have experience with 
> >fasting), your doctor, or some other qualified person, but it is NOT 
> >something to try on your own.  Nutrition is the most obvious factor,  
but far 
> >from the only one.  Anyone with any kind of eating disorder (even a  
mild one) 
> >will find fasting to be playing with fire.  Fasting also induces  
altered 
> >states of consciousness and perception, which can trigger other  
problems.
> --clh]
> 
> You need to be careful when fasting, however expert supervision is
> not necessary.  Slowdown in activity is common, but fasting cleanses
> the body physically as well as mentally.  Muslims fast one month a year
> from sunrise to sunset -- in the summer months for 18 hours a day with  
no
> food nor liquid.

I definitely disagree with the first statement about Expert Supervision.   
I don't see it anywhere in the Bible and from my own personal experience,  
I usually find a lot of strength when I'm fasting (Is. 40)  I fasted about  
a year ago for two days (liquids only) and during that time, I played  
football, played racquetball, went biking, played basketball, as well as  
my usual load of work and such and found more energy during this time than  
I usually have.  If you feel led to fast for whatever reasons, you don't  
have to stop your activity.  "They who wait upon the Lord, shall renew  
their strength"

Mike Kohlmeier
"Go ahead and flame me;  after I'm dead, I won't be seeing any flames"
From: smothers@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Faith Healers
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:44:22 GMT
Organization: Northern Arizona University

Okay: I heard this on CHRISTIAN RADIO between two christian songs:
It was a commercial for a national christian talk show:

Host: Hello Cynthia from Orlando.

Cynthia: I'm having this problem with people from the local church. You see
         I'm blind, and they are telling me that the reason I'm blind is
         because I don't have enough faith to be healed.

Host:    Do you have a cane, Cynthia?

Cynthia:  Yes.

Host:     Well the next time they tell you that, hit them REAL HARD, and tell
          them if they had more faith it wouln't hurt so hard.

True story.

------
Mark
Mark (will differentiate partial derivitives for food) Smothers
smothers @nauvax.nau.ucc.edu
Warning: I WILL post abusive e-mail.
From: ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Catechisms
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:06:45 GMT
Organization: Oceans & Ice Branch

In article <Aug.18.02.25.02.1992.27326@aramis.rutgers.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
> David Cruz-Uribe asks about catechism.  The 1979 BCP has a catechism, the
> first american BCP to have one.  (The english book has never had one, unless
> you want to count the 39 articles, which I wouldn't.)  It is an extremely
> middle-of-the-road document, and as such has not really attracted a lot of
> attention.
> -- 
> C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
>                   +    but strife closed in the sod.
> mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
> tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."

Wrong.  Get out your 1928 BCP, dust it off (you should really get it out more
often you know -- the beauty of the language has never been surpassed) and
look at the table of contents.  What is that there, back in the back near
Family Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles.  Why, it's a catechism, written
in the late 1700's for the first American Prayer Book and kept unchanged until
the 1979 BCP.  It asks basically about the Apostle's Creed, the 10 Commandments,
and the two sacraments (making it more Protestant in orientation than the
1979 BCP's catechism).

Jason
From: wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Papacy (was Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2))
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:19:13 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Eric" == Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com> writes:

Eric> In article <Aug.14.02.21.10.1992.27500@athos.rutgers.edu>,

Eric> Matthew 16:17: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of
Eric> Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father
Eric> in heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter [Aramaic Kepha,
Eric> meaning Rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the
Eric> gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys
Eric> of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be
Eric> bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed
Eric> in heaven." 

I think the Greek (and all we have is the Greek) is `Petros' (Peter)
and `petra' (rock).  The church is built on the foundation of 
the confession of faith that Peter made, speaking for the
disciples: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".
That is the rock to which Christ referred.

As for the keys, elsewhere in Scripture the keys are given to the 
apostles as a group,  Matt 18:18, John 20:23. In these passages the 
plural form is used, although the singular is used in Matt 16:19.
The use of the keys is described in Matt 18:19,20: "Again, 
I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you 
ask for, it will be done for you by my father in heaven.
For where two or three come together in my name, there am
I with them."  

The keys belong to the church and not to any individual. A pastor,
in the exercise of his call, can proclaim God's forgiveness to
those who believe and repent, and he can warn the unrepentant of
the judgement that is to come, but he does not do so on his own
authority.  He acts on behalf of the church, and by the command
of the Lord.

Eric>  And Jesus
Eric> renamed him "Rock" -- a very unusual thing, since before that
Eric> time God alone was called Rock.

This argument really ought to make you sqeamish.  It is a mark of
the antichrist that he "opposes and exalts himself over everything
that is called God or is worshipped, and even sets himself up
in God's temple, proclaiming hiself to be God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4,
see also Daniel 11:36).

Regards,			"The Church's one foundation
				Is Jesus Christ, her Lord;
David H. Wagner			She is His new creation
a confessional Lutheran.	By water and the Word.
				From heav'n He came and sought her
				To be His holy bride;
				With His own blood He bought her,
				And for her life He died."
				--"The Church's One Foundation" v. 1
				--Samuel J. Stone, 1866