HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help Needed
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:12:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia

huang@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca writes:

>: >But can anyone provide me with evidence of scientists and other
>: >"empirical" thinkers (mathematicians come to mind) who were
>: >also religious? 

>: Isaac Newton (an arian who spent 50% of his studies in the Scriptures)

>: I am sure that there are more.

Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Blaise Pascal come to mind. There are many more
--
Michael Hartley 		    _-_|\  | "All things works for good to
hartley@madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au     /	 \ |  them that love God - them that
University of WA ----------------> *_.-._/ |  are the called according to His
					v  |  purpose" - Romans 8:28
From: betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: MEN > WOMEN  "...because the Bible tells me so..."
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:13:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

I am writing to respond to a common practical argument for male
headship of the household, the "Well, how do you handle disagreements
if somebody doesn't have ultimate power?"  A specific example given is
"What do we do if A wants to move the household and B doesn't?"

The answer, in my household, has been that we try to alternate giving
in to one another.  I don't mean that we keep some sort of log of
decisions --- You wouldn't let me buy the sofa, so that means I get to
pick what we have for supper -- but rather that I, as a partner in the
marriage, try to relax my insistence on my own way sometimes, and my
husband does the same.  This requires no less discipline and patience
than the household in which the wife always submits in a serious
disagreement.

To give a concrete example, five years ago my husband moved with me
from a job in which he was very happy, because it had become clear
that I couldn't find an appropriate job in the old area.   After our
family situation had changed, and it became obvious that the new
situation wasn't meeting my husband's needs, I took the initiative 
in encouraging my husband to consider another move, to a place which
would meet his needs.  I took an active role in investigating job
openings and researching new locations, because I took responsibility
for my husband's well-being, just as he had cared for mine in the
former move.  A marriage can work quite well without either
partner's being the ultimate authority.
-- 
Betsy Hanes Perry   (note P in userid)     betsyp@apollo.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Company
"I'm sorry, I turned off my hearing aid.  Could you repeat the
question, please?"
From: cole@maverick ( Cole Keirsey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Relationship presumes existence
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:29:00 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

In article <Oct.13.00.46.20.1992.21802@geneva.rutgers.edu> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>
>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.

When I read this article, I decided to see if there were any follow-up
articles on my news server before I responded. (Apologies in advance to
those who use mail readers other than rn -- my example isn't going to
make sense to you.) First I entered the command:

m   (mark the current article unread)

Then I entered the command:

<shift><control>N   (find the next article with the same subject line.)

Now, the <shift><control>N command describes a relationship between two
articles -- that the article found is the next article with the same
subject as the current article.  As it happened, there were no other
articles with the same subject on my news server, so the result of the
command was to return me to the current article.  The relationship
turned out to be a self-reference rather than a relationship to a second
article.  But I did not know this in advance.

So, it would be absurd to say that I had to believe there was a second
article before I searched for it.  Yet, when you search for something,
you have a certain relationship to it.  Doubts about one's relationship
to God may take the same form.  A person may ask "does my idea of God
refer to a real being, or does it exist only as an idea of mine?" Or,
more to the point, perhaps there is a God, but my idea of God is
inaccurate.  Or perhaps God, through the Spirit, speaks to my heart, but
I misunderstand the Spirit's message...

Anyway, that article souned to me like
another attempt to define a litmus test for "True Christians," as only
those who profess to be free of all doubt about their beliefs.  How can
you have free will if you can't even conceive of alternative beliefs?
How do you deal with the case where two people have faith that is free
from doubt, but have contradictory beliefs about their relationships to
God?

cck



-- 
______________________________________________________________________
C. C. Keirsey                 | "Verbosity leads to unclear,  
US WEST Advanced Technologies |  inarticulate things." 
Boulder, Colorado             |                       -- Dan Quayle
From: gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:11:04 GMT
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany

In article <Oct.6.00.38.10.1992.8594@geneva.rutgers.edu>
watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:

There are several good points made in this article.  But I want to
object to this:

|I recommend the book "The MInd of God" by Paul Davies for a very readable
|exploration of the issues.  Among other things, he presents an
|intriguing proof that the Universe is at least partly contingent.  He
|draws a parallel between the Universe and a mathematical system, with
|fundamental physical laws and initial conditions playing the part of axioms,
|and all the observed features of the Universe being the "propositions".

This won't work.  Observed features are not propositions in a formal
system, nor is there any coherent analogy.

|If the Universe is logically necessary then all observed features can
|be shown to follow from the laws and intial conditions (in math. terms,
|they are all "theorems" which can be derived from the axioms).  However,
|according to Godel's Theorem, any system of more than a critical degree of
|complexity must contain propositions whose truth value cannot be decided
|from within the system.

Godel is about what can be proven, whereas presumably the features
would reflect what is actually the case.
From: kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:20:36 GMT
Reply-To: kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa)
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY

In article <Oct.9.04.12.39.1992.14637@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:

> The Anglican Church does not accept transubstantiation.

and the moderator notes:

>Anglicans seem to hold a more general "real presence", and to regard
>transsubstantiation as one allowable explanation (probably not the
>most common) for how the real presence works.
 
mls@cbnewsm.att.com writes:
> Correct.  I would say that only the most "Anglo-Catholic" would be
> likely to hold the doctrine, but it is not excluded. 

The Anglican position seems stronger than this, or at least was traditionally.
Article XXVIII reads: 
"...
Transubstatniation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the
Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain
words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given
occasion to many superstitions."


-- 
Thanks, John Kolassa, kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu

[Note that the Episcopal church is not a credal one.  Thus there are
members who dissent from the Articles in one respect or another.  It's
my impression that there are Episcopaleans who are closer to Catholic
than you'd think based on the Articles.  Probably some of our
Episcopal or Anglican readers can say more, but I suspect this can be
traced largely to the Oxford Movement.  --clh]
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Public School Prayer
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:49:55 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

vxv4@po.cwru.edu (Virgilio Velasco) writes:

[...]
>	I think you are using the word "impose" rather loosely here.
>Bush et al. do not want to force everyone to pray.  They simply want to
>give the students the option of praying in public schools.  This is
>hardly the same as "imposing" prayer on the studentry.
[...]

Students can pray in school now. What is prohibited is
school-sponsored prayer.

- Carl

Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

[This discussion seems to me to be somewhat in the dark.  If we're to
continue it, I'd like for someone who supports Bush's position to say
somewhat more specifically what you mean.  I.e. what is it that is now
not possible that you want to happen.  --clh]
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Revelations...
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:14:00 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
>        How do you all out there know that they guy who wrote it
>was not mental ? I do not mean that as a flame or anything, but it
>seems as if the guy who wrote it was mental or on LSD or something...

Because it was included by the Church in the canon of books
which belong to the Bible. You could not say that the entire
body of the Church was "mental" or "on LSD". Many other books
(e.g. the "Gnostic gospels") were excluded because they did not
seem to be of God. The nature of the Church, including all
those institutional aspects against which so many complain and
which leads them away from it towards Protestantism, is its
guarantee against being influenced by human frailties such as
mental illness.

Matthew Huntbach
From: urcat@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Eilidh Swan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: prayer author
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:10:49 GMT

A friend and I are interested in knowing if the following prayer/poem has
a known author....I believe I've run across this before, but the copy
we have doesn't have an author credit.  E-mail is appreciated.
--
	I asked God for strength, that I might achieve,
	I was made weak, that I might learn humbly to obey.
	I asked for health, that I might do greater things,
	I was given infirmity, that I might do better things.
	I asked for riches, that I might be happy,
	I was given poverty, that I might be wise.
	I asked for power, that I might have the praise of men,
	I was given weakness, that I might feel the need of God.
	I asked for all things, that I might enjoy life,
	I was given life, that I might enjoy all things.
	I got nothing that I asked for -- but everything I had hoped for.
	Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered.
	I am, among all men, most richly blessed.
--
Eilidh Swan
************************************************************************
Cat McGlothlin    urcat@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu   'urcat'='you-are-cat'   "Oh!"
                  eilidh@cs.ucsb.edu       -- Eilidh is Celtic for Ellen
"It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is.
If you don't, it's its.  Then too, it's hers.  It isn't her's.  It isn't
our's either.  It's ours.  And likewise, yours and theirs too."
From: swansond@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:52:08 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <Oct.10.02.31.18.1992.16695@geneva.rutgers.edu> ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com writes:
>OK, let's get our facts straight.

Please.

>Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, i.e. that
>the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Christ.

My trusty ole (Lutheran) confirmation workbook sez:

"As we receive the bread and wine, we also receive, in a manner in which
we cannot explain or understand, the true body and blood of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ. (REAL PRESENCE)"

"THE BREAD AND WINE ARE NOT CHANGED INTO the body and blood of Christ
(TRANSUBSTANTIATION)..."

>Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation, no, they believe in 
>consubstantiation, which still means that the bread and wine become the body
>and blood of Christ.

From an old Lutheran seminary textbook:

"'Transubstantiation' implies that the earthly elements retain only their
external forms, such as color, taste, and are changed into Christ's body
and blood. 'Consubstantiation' usually denotes the theory -- erroneously
charged against Lutheranism -- that the earthly and heavenly elements are
substantially united."

Just wanted to correct some misrepresentations of Lutheran doctrines.

	In Him,

		Den

-- 
..................................................................
: Dennis M. Swanson : "No matter how long you live, remember that :
: swansond@csus.edu : you will be dead much longer."  Eccl. 11:8b :
:...................:.............................................:
From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help Needed
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:22:20 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:

>In article <Oct.10.22.29.13.1992.18198@geneva.rutgers.edu>
>huang@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca writes:
>>: >But can anyone provide me with evidence of scientists and other
>>: >"empirical" thinkers (mathematicians come to mind) who were
>>: >also religious?  Russ Lawrence has been bashing a Christian
>>: >and discrediting his opinions because of Christian beliefs.


>Though I have not heard him accept the final reality as being defined as Xian,
>Sir Fredric Hoyle of "Big Bang" fame has come to conclude that there has to be


julian :

I prefer the example of John Polkinghorne who was a professor of mathematics
at Cambridge university until a few years ago when he resigned his chair
to become an Anglican priest. He has written a book on the relation between
science and belief in God called: The Way the World Is".            

Peace

julian
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Computer-based material
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:25:30 GMT
Organization: Self-similar

A seminarian friend without net access has asked me to try to find
where to get the Summa (in English or Latin) or the Vulgate or Douay
Bible (in Latin, but perhaps English would do) on disk.  He prefers 
a Mac-readable format.  Any information would be appreciated.  


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick					wbralick@afit.af.mil

Standard disclaimers apply.  Void where prohibitted by law.
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (10-16)
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:29:49 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Friday, October 16:

     He that hears my word and believes him that sent me has
everlasting life, and he does not come into judgement but has passed
over from death to life.  <John 5: 24>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (10-15)
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:49:59 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Thursday, October 15:

     God is love.  <1 John 4: 8>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:18:34 GMT

Gary Chin (gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
> I believe that this is one of the most difficult responsibilities of
> the husband.  Can a husband love his wife enough that she will accept
> his final decision, even if she doesn't agree with the decision?
>
> Eph:5:25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
> church, and gave himself for it

The relationship between Israel and God is often compared to a marriage
relationship (cf Hosea and others). Either you must concede that God is
not perfectly loving, or else that perfect love is not enough to ensure
that the loved one will always be obedient.

The answer to your question is therefore no, he can't.

I personally do not think that Jesus' example in accepting crucifixion
is of any relevance to a healthy and positive marriage relationship.

But even if it was, the waywardness of the Church further indicates
that perfect love does not inevitably inspire perfect obedience. I
consider this to be entirely appropriate.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: cameron.kaszas@china.inst.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Men's/Women's roles in marriage
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:27:37 GMT

>> (Tracy L. Hughes) writes:
> (Link Hudson) writes:

>> follow.  Since none of these commandments states that a woman must submit
>> to her husband, it follows from this that submission to one's husband is
>> not an essential doctrine of Christianity and hence Feminism and Christianity
>> are compatible

> In the New Testament we see that wives are indeed to submit to their husbands
> even when there is no threat of violence.  Husbands are to value there
> wives as much, perhaps even more, than themselves.

1. Submission is an essential doctrine of Christianity.  (For all of us to 
God, and for wives to their husbands.  This points out to me how
SPECIAL a relationship marriage is to God!)

2. In man's eyes, servants are lowly. In God's eyes, those who serve are
at the top, with Christ. 

3. A lot is asked here of BOTH husband and wife (Eph 5:22-33).  
Clearly to love your wife
more than yourself, as Christ loved us, is asking more of the husband. 
Think about it.  Isn't it almost impossible for us to love someone more 
than ourselves?  Doesn't it also involve submission of our desires for someone
elses?

4. I think Feminism that is compatible with Christianity is still Feminism,
and does exist.  But I strongly disagree with the conclusion drawn above
that this "advice" from Paul can be ignored, and is not essential to living 
the Christian life.

- Cam
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:11:19 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

>[My impression is that the
>Anglicans seem to hold a more general "real presence", and to regard
>transsubstantiation as one allowable explanation (probably not the
>most common) for how the real presence works.
>--clh]

I don't know the Anglican scene in the USA.  In Australia, and probably in
most places, the Anglican church covers a wide spectrum of views.  I come
from Sydney Diocese, which is widely known as strongly evangelical.

According to the official statement of Anglican doctrine, the 39 Articles,
transubstantiation is explicitly denied.  The 1552 prayer book was
basically Zwinglian in its theology of the sacraments.  The 1559 and 1662
prayer books modified this slightly, so that a real presence can be read
in if you want to.  The Anglo-Catholic wing of the church tends towards
transubstantiation.  The evangelical wing is mostly Zwinglian.  I'm not
too sure where the liberal wing comes down on this - it is probably pretty
varied.
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Was Sign of Jonah / 3 days etc.
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:54:22 GMT
Organization: FNAL

In article <Oct.7.01.11.26.1992.10616@geneva.rutgers.edu>
ccjwm@marlin.jcu.edu.au (John Miller) writes:

>Another puzzling thing for me is that according to the notes
>in the NIV Study Bible, the month of Nisan equates to March/April,
>yet REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov in article 11005 seems to assume a June 6 
>date for the Passover Sabbath in 30AD.  What are the bases for these
>two seemingly opposing assumptions?

Did I say June?  I meant April.  Thanks for the correction.

>Finally, and I suppose this is also an FAQ, where does the 30AD as
>opposed to 33AD date for the year of Jesus' crucifixion come from?

Some writers have choosen 33AD over 30AD.  There is a full moon on thursday of
that year during the passover.  THe problem seen with it however is that it
rises within 2 hrs of sunset, or Friday.  The thing is, if we hold to exactly,
literally what the Sacred Text says, i.e. "that He was to be 3 days & 3 nites
in the the grave and that Christ was crucified on the "preparation of the
Passover", then the 33AD model doesn't fit.  Really its a marriage of Bible
text and astronomical fact.

>           *
>         *   *
>    *       +
>*          *

Are these stars?