HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Witnessing - Deception okay? (NOT!)
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:13:51 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON

I have always thought that it would be impolite and purposefully
offensive to refer to the Old Testament as the Old Testament or the
Old Covenant when talking to a Jewish person.  As far as calling Jesus
Yeshua, it is fine so long as the Jewish person knows who you are 
talking about.  Personally (and I come from a non-Jewish background),
I am becoming more and more comfortable with the name Yeshua than 
Jesus.

Shawn Abigail
abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:28:25 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

Prayer is not simply asking for things - it is the communication
aspect of our relationship with God.  As Christians, we believe in a
personal God; a personal relationship requires communication ... in
this case prayer.  Check out Richard Foster's new book Prayer for why
and how we pray, and why God wants us to ask even though He knows our
needs better than we.
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Anticlericalism (was Re: CREMATION)
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:51:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <Jan.11.03.45.32.1993.21254@geneva.rutgers.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>>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).

Well, I'm aware of quite a few cases where disagreements have
led to Catholics leaving the Church, where the more appropriate
response would have been to try another parish, which is why I
responded as I did. I apologise that what I meant as abstract
comments could have been interpreted as a particular attack on
the people in the specific case Jeff brought up; they weren't
meant to be.

Perhaps it is different in the USA, but here in the UK the
portrayal of the Catholic Church in the media is
overwhelmingly negative, leading many people, even
practising Catholics to have some very strange ideas, and to
automatically jump to negative conclusions when these might not
be warranted.

As an example, I see both opposition to abortion, and
vegetarianism as extensions of the concern people have for
protecting life. Yet while the media frequently praise
vegetarians, portraying them as modern forward-thinking people,
any opposition to abortion is automatically seen as due to
backwards-looking, priest-ridden thinking. A recent newspaper
report mentioned a school putting on a Christmas play "from
the view of the turkey" in order to be secular, to avoid the
traditional Christian nativity play. Well, I very much doubt
that a play "from the view of an unborn child" would
have been interpreted as secular.

Catholicism is often portrayed as a sort of disease, to whose
"sufferers" sympathy might be offered, but sympathy only on the
lines of "what a pity their priests have made them think that
way". In fact there was a magazine article on these very lines
over Christmas entitled "Is God a Computer Virus?".

Matthew Huntbach
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Chuck Coleson's "THE BODY"
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:22:07 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Jan.6.02.20.43.1993.3042@geneva.rutgers.edu> scotth@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu writes:
|Has anyone read Chuck Coleson's new book, THE BODY, and, if you have,
|could you post some thoughts about it.  I haven't had the chance to
|read it yet and want to know if it's worth reading.

I haven't read it, but I heard his New Year's special and they
talked a lot about _THE BODY_.  It sounded very good.  He has
some different ideas, and good ones at that, about how the church
should affect society.  He is not one for the church being tied
to a specific political party, although he is conservative, but
rather that the church should be affecting their local neighborhoods
from the bottom up and not from the top down.  He had an invitation
to sit with Dan Quayle at the Republican National Convention, but
he turned it down.

For those who don't know CC, he was President Nixon's right hand
man.  He served time for his involvement in Watergate and became
a Christian just before entering or maybe during prison (not really
sure on this one.)  He now heads up a ministry called Prison Fellowship 
International, I believe.  He has a newsletter and a radio commentary.

On the New Year's special, they offered selected chapter's of
his book, THE BODY, free by mail.  These are to encourage 
you to by the book.

The number is:   1-800-995-8777

Ask for a newsletter and maybe even the transcript from his New
Years show, too.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Pacifism
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:47:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <Jan.8.00.58.08.1993.2739@farside.rutgers.edu> rxm@vortex (Robert I McLachlan) writes:
>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.

But it's out of context. But a chapter or two before this law was given,
israel was commanded to kill those who approached the mountain. Other laws
with death penalties follow. So unless a very bad editor is at work, or
God is insane, those other passages qualify the statement. 

We should obey our father's and mothers, too, but not if they command
something immoral. I've understood the 10 commandments as a summary of the
moral law. Basic boil-down priciples. There are exceptions.

Also, many have pointed out that "do no murder" would be a better
inrepretation. But as murder is defined as "unlawful killing", the rest of
the law is needed to flesh out just what killings are considered unlawful
(capital punishment, defensive warfare, and protection of the home don't
appear among them).

paul duggan
From: alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:40:06 GMT
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=

In article <Jan.3.21.44.04.1993.28273@geneva.rutgers.edu> labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson) writes:
>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....??

As I understand it the purpose of prayer is not to beg, but to establish
regular communion with the spirit.  In prayer you should talk with god
about your thoughts, your feelings, even what you did today.  Open up the
dialogue, vent your anger, express your thanks, make the spirit your best
friend, confidant and guide.  Regular communication and thought of the
spirit is the point of prayer.  You can make requests but gods purpose
is not to induldge selfishness - he is not Santa Claus.  You are responsible
for obtaining your own wants and needs.  Prayer may give you insight and
energy on how to go about it, but it is not meant to be a magic means of
making things happen.  When you tell your feelings with the presence of
the spirit in mind you often see things in a different light or from an
angle you hadn't considered before.
 

-- 
Dave                | Truth is the most valuable thing we have.
alpinist@eskimo.com | Let us economize it. - Mark Twain
From: dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:34:27 GMT
Organization: The Mountains of Madness

Whilst I accept the need for the death penalty, I find it harder to
accept that, as a blanket statement, that God says all who murder
should die in return (paraphrasing of course). The problem I find with
so many of God's biblical statements in the bible is that they appear
to only deal with black and white situations. If God is all knowing
and understanding, then surely he knows that each individual is a
product of his/her environment and the conditioning they have been
exposed to. Now I know that doesn't excuse people from knowing the
difference between right and wrong, but I believe that some people,
because of their 'conditioning', are better able to resist temptation,
are better able to walk the 'right path' and hence should (ultimately)
be judged taking everything into account. 

For example; the commandment states: "Thou shalt not steal"

Person A is born into a comfortable, loving home, has a happy
childhood, wants for nothing. As a teenager, he gets bored easily and,
for kicks, goes shoplifting.

Person B is born into a ghetto, one of many children, all who are
hungry. He learns fast that you have to be quick and sly to survive.
He believes that it's every man for himself and believes that only the
strong survive. he steals, he robs, he mugs etc. etc. 

Who has commited the greater sin? Are each to be damned?

I can't believe that God works in absolutes like this and therefore
can't accept that biblical law, with all it's apparent savagery, is
the 'answer'.

Just a thought.

Dave
From: sdittman@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Scott Dittman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:50:58 GMT
Organization: Washington & Lee University

I must disagree with the continuing notion of mankind 'helping' God rid
the world of sinners.  In God's eyes, isn't hatred of our fellow 'raca'
equally anathema as even the most foul murder?  Doesn't God prefer his
dusty Creation to the slightest touch of our sinful hands, even in an
attempt to be helpful?  Christ has fulfilled the Law (and mankinds
legalistic interpretations of it) and freed us from having to pay homage
or even lip service to it (e.g. the Sabbath made for man not vice versa). 
Yes, punishment is necessary in human culture just as it is everywhere in
God's scheme but I will gladly pay higher taxes to keep criminals in
prison forever rather than take their lives willingly.  The longer they
are alive the more opportunity God gives us to point them along the narrow
Way and to learn from them and to glorify God in their weakness and even
their imprisonment.  God calls us to reconciliation with our brothers and
sisters uner His authority.  I don't see room there for executing final
earthly judgement over them.  I'll leave that in God's hands.

-- 
Scott Dittman                    email: sdittman@wlu.edu
University Registrar             talk: (703)463-8455   fax: (703)463-8024
Washington and Lee University    snail mail:  Lexington Virginia 24450
From: news@cs.ruu.nl (Six O'Clock News)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The purpose of meetings of the local church
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:27:07 GMT
Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

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.

The idea of cell groups generally is not because people are too distant
from each other in a physical sense, but to give them more possibilities
for fellowship. In a big-meeting only church people can easily get lost and
meetings can be impersonal. Cell groups can help people to know, help and
love each other, and are also a means to practice spiritual gifts.

Just dividing a church into cell groups doesn't work of course, they also
need a change of attitude (unless that attiitude is already there, of
course).

Also this doesn't mean that a church without cell groups is necessarily
without fellowship or love, don't understand me wrong.
-- 
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: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: praying for leaders
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:12:26 GMT

On <07 Jan 1993 23:39> Matthew Huntbach said to All :

 MH>But I don't think you can even say that Christians who are
 MH>theologically conservative (whether Protestant or Catholic) are
 MH>automatically Conservative in their politics. There are plenty
 MH>of exceptions to this "rule". Oddly enough, I find it harder to
 MH>think of exceptions to the rule that Christians who are liberal
 MH>theologically are Liberal in politics ("Liberal" used in the
 MH>USA sense, closer to "social democratic" in the language of
 MH>European politics).

According to my observation the rule is generally that theological 
conservatism is linked to political liberalism and vice versa. 

That is no doubt coloured by my own experience in South Africa, where I was a 
member of the Liberal Party. It is also no doubt coloured by my sympathy with 
the views of G.K. Chesterton, who was theologically conservative and 
politically liberal.

I observed, when I went to the UK in the "secular sixties" that the liberal 
theologians were the ones who were most concerned about making Christianity 
acceptable to "modern man", which meant that on the whole they accepted the 
secular status quo. They were keen on promoting a revolution in theology, but 
they looked askance at the idea of a theology of revolution.. 

And it was Chesterton who pointed out that if the vision of heaven is always 
changing, the vision of earth will always remain exactly the same. You need a 
fixed vision to change the world. If your vision is changing, you will never 
change the world. The modern young man will never change the world, for he 
will always change his mind. 

Steve Hayes
P O Box 7648, Pretoria
0001 South Africa
From: mani@mirada.stanford.edu (Mani Varadarajan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dodd and Gandi
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:19:17 GMT
Reply-To: mani@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Stanford University

In article <Jan.11.03.41.37.1993.21187@geneva.rutgers.edu> mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack) writes:

   However, given what I know about Mahatma Gandhi, not just his
   good works, but his philosophy of peace and love, I don't think
   he is excluded from paradise simply because he never professed
   faith in Jesus Christ.

A lot of people seem to be missing the point.  Gandhi professed
faith in Jesus; he held the Sermon on the Mount especially dear
to his heart.  He did not, however, say that Jesus was the *only*
son of God, and in this sense, he wasn't a mainstream Christian.

When asked once what religion he belonged to, he half-jokingly
replied, "I am a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Jew ..." or
something to that effect.  At any rate, Gandhi tried all his life
to "do the will of my Father who is in Heaven", and in my
opinion, was one of the most Christlike figures of this century.

Two books are particularly relevant in this context:

     Gandhi's challenge to Christianity / by S.K. George ; with foreword by S.
   Radhakrishnan.  1st Indian ed. / [foreword by] Horace Alexander.  Ahmedabad
   : Navajivan Pub. House, 1947.
       UCB   Main      DS481.G36 G4 1947
       UCI   Main Lib  BR128.H5 G43 1947

This book was written by a Catholic priest in India, who found
that Gandhi was one of the best Christians that he had ever seen,
in spite of his not being baptized, etc.

The other book is also by a Christian priest, C. F. Andrews,
one of Gandhi's closest friends.  I haven't read it, but I
surmise that it comes to a similar conclusion.  In any case, it
provides for some Hindu-Christian dialogue.

     Mahatma Gandhi, his life and ideas / C.F. Andrews.  Delhi : Anmol
   Publications, 1987.
       UCB   Main      B133.G4 A6 1987

It seems to me that those who have belief in Jesus, but who also
believe in the essential unity of different faiths, are somehow
held by some in this group to be "lesser" Christians, or at least
less-entitled (for lack of a better term) to salvation.

Yours in Peace,
Mani
From: gslade@cyberstore.ca (Greg Slade)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Missionary Information....
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:47:31 GMT
Organization: Cyberstore Online Information Systems Inc.

Hansel Lee (IZZYEJ2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu) wrote:
: Does anyone have any information on organizations involved in Missionary work
: (Both Long & Short Term).   Could someone E-Mail me either addresses or phone
: numbers of organizations involved in missionary work.  I am considering it
: for myself and would appreciate some more information.

It would be easier if you gave some indication of your theological position,
as most missions have some sort of statement of faith they expect you to
abide by.  However, there are four sources to consider:

IVCF (there should be a chapter at UCLA, or else look up Inter-Varsity
Christian Fellowship in the phone book) sponsors a major missions conference
every 2nd or 3rd year, and has a big program to match up candidates with 
mission groups.

If Pasadena is local to you, call the U.S. Center for World Mission, 1605 E.
Elizabth Street.  They are a research organisation, but have contacts with
scads of missions, with several missions having offices or reps on campus.

There's a group in Seattle called InterCristo which specialises in matching 
up ministries and workers, but I'm afraid I don't have the address.  (IVCF
probably would, or maybe call 1-206-555-1212.)

World Vision publishes a directory of missions every few years.  It lists
every mission they can track down, the goals and distinctives, budget, 
number of missionaries, and where they work.  It ain't cheap, but you might
find it in a library.
From: stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Apocalyptic Interpretations Info
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:57:03 GMT

I am trying to research all major, current interpretations of biblical 
apocalyptic writings (Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation, etc.).  Ideally, I would 
like to obtain a book that details them all in an objective manner.
Any good recommendations?

Todd Stevens
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ?'s
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:36:28 GMT
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin

In article <Jan.8.00.49.58.1993.2525@farside.rutgers.edu> mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith ) writes:
>In article <Jan.7.01.27.14.1993.6107@geneva.rutgers.edu>, shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
>|> Some questions:
>|> 
>|> 3) On the cross, Jesus asked why God had forsaken him. Didn't he have
>|>    total faith?
>
>Jesus was totally human as well as totally divine.  If he had not
>expereinced human limitations and doubts, he would not have been truly
>human and his life would not be a realistic model for us
>
In addition to this, Jesus literally *became* sin - everyone's sin, for
all time.  God cannot be in the presence of sin, so he literally had to turn
his back on it.  In his eyes, that was not his son on that cross, but all
sins of all people for all time.  There was no way he could tolerate to 
look at that.  

At first, this sounds really cold, but if you think about it, it drives 
home the point of how much God loves us.  He was willing to subject his 
only son to that kind of punishment, for something he never did.  He was
willing to allow his son to go through the most difficult experience any
of us could ever imagine *alone*.  He literally sent his son to Hell.
Why?  Just so that we could have the chance to live with him, not just
in eternity, but now, as well.  Just as God saw sin when Jesus was 
hanging on the cross, he now sees Jesus, in all of his perfection and
victory, when we approach him.  Pretty good deal for us, wouldn't you
say?  I'd much rather be viewed by God as looking like Jesus than as
looking like me.  Praise God for this!


===============================================================================
Paul Conditt		Internet: conditt@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu
Applied Research	Phone:	  (512) 835-3086   FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
  Laboratories		Fedex:	  10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas	Postal:	  P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live
no witty sayings or quotes here