HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: palladin@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (fabio palladini)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christian itinerary
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:14:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dep. - Milan University

Hi!
I'm new to this newsgroup, I'm a responsable of my parish (Azione Cattolica president)
 I would like to have some suggestoin to:
Christian itinerary for young man ( 17-20 years old) 
All materials are accepted
Please e-mail me!  Thanks so much!
Fabio 

+-------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|Palladini Fabio          |   "give an answer to every man that asketh you |
|HUG Computer Science Dep.| a reason of the hope that is in you" 1Pt 3,15  |
|Milan University         +------------------------------------------------+
|v.Comelico, 39/41        | E-Mail : palladin@ghost.dsi.unimi.it           |
|20133 Milano Italy       | Phone  : +39-2-55006346                        |
+-------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
From: barry1@ihspc.att.com (Barry O Olson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A technical question on Christology
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:15:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T

[much deletion here]
> 
> 		Logos - divine nature
> 		====================		
> 		Jesus - human nature
> 
> where the ==== is supposed to indicate the imprinting of the divine
> nature on the human nature.
> 
> In some sense it could be said that I believe there are two persons,
> and thus that this view is heretical.  I certainly believe that Jesus
> was a human being, with a real human existence.  However I would argue
> that this doesn't imply two separate persons, but rather the same
> person in two forms.  That is, I believe that Jesus' character, life,
> etc. -- while having their own integrity on the human level -- are
> simply the reflection in human form of the character and actions of
> the Logos.
> 
[some deletion here]
I somewhat agree with this concept, and will try to flesh it out in my
own words(figuratively speaking:)).

As you asked for other's thoughts on the nature[s] of Jesus or the Logos
clothed in human form, I'll give it a shot just for ferdder fodder:-)

This person views the concept/theory of Jesus exempler of what we are to
become in sharing in the divine with the human through him, much like Jesus
shared the divine and human through the Logos as part of the Godhead.
In otherwords, Jesus provided the model of what humans can become through
accepting him(through the agency of the comforter whom he the father sent
after Jesus's conquering of death in the resurrection).
Now we in human form can partake of the divine along with [the old man]
nature we were born with by being born again(tm). But, unlike us, Jesus did
not have the [old man] sin nature, but a human nature(like adam's before
the fall?). 
In us, who are born again, find ourselves with two natures in one human
body. In our case, the divine acting to regenerate or renew, and the [old man]
sin nature acting to retain sovereignty. This was acted out in Jesus when he
was put to the test several times and passed, however I believe he felt the
full weight of temptation as we do.

Still with me? the point is, that Jesus was the first born of what his
followers were to later become and share in. The divine nature and the human
nature being held in one human body with the difference that Jesus was without
sin, but still human, and us being with sin and human, and Jesus's experience
working in us through the agency of the Holy Spirit to not only hide us in
his shed blood sacrifice, but to regenerate us with his power(well actually
speaking of all three)to learn the way of love and forgiveness.

barry--
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God does exist! (Was Re: Non-Religious Practice)
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:20:04 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <Oct.16.03.52.05.1992.27600@geneva.rutgers.edu> ajg00@ccc.amdahl.com (Aerin Gabrielli) writes:

>While absolute evidence in the existance of God is not possible there is
>strong evidence in science to suggest his existance.
>....  To research this for yourself I would suggest the book "The
>Finger Print of God, written by two astrophysisist.  Thier
>primary proof rests in the big bang theory, which virtually all
>scientist have accepted.  ....  They also provide
>evidence, from the forces of nature ie. strong nuclear force, weak nuclear
>force, electromagnetic force etc..  Since, it appears that these forces
>and many others have been finely tuned to allow the existance of life...

Such "evidences" as there are usually taken to rest, however, on some one
or another version of the Argument From Design, and anyone interested in
the cogency or otherwise of this general line of argument for God's 
existence should look at my post in alt.philosophy.misc [I think that's 
whereI posted it] dealing with that argument. While this type of argument 
continues to be in active commission today among conservative evangelical 
and in some serious theological circles, it is widely held to involve 
question-begging assumptions; and teleological reasoning and explanations 
must try to compete with mechanistic, nonteleologically oriented 
explanations given by secular science, a very precarious compitition indeed.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:12:50 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <Oct.4.21.36.29.1992.5830@geneva.rutgers.edu> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>CS Lewis (Mere Christianity) presents the idea as the husband is responsible
>for foreign affairs, while the wife runs domestic affairs.  It seems to be
>an interesting idea, and one certainly couldn't say that the man's role is
>more important than the woman's.  (Just ask George Bush about the importance
>of domestic affairs :-)

In "Mere Christianity" Lewis prefaces his section on marriage with a
warning that as an unmarried man he may not be on the right lines at
all.  Of all Lewis's ideas, I disagree most vehemently with this
section on marriage, and have often wondered how he would have written
it _after_ his marriage.  My problem with the whole male headship
teaching is this:

It seems to me from the accounts of creation that men and women were
both created in the image of God and created equal.  "The curse" in
Genesis 3 may not actually be prescriptive, but rather a description
of the consequences of the Fall.  However even if it is a curse, do we
not believe that all curses were overturned at Calvery.  In otherwords
as Christians we should be living in relationships as God intended
them to be from the outset, not continuing on with the fallen version.

Turning to the NT, it seems to me that the two rules of behaviour in
the Kingdom are Love and Submission.  We are to love our brothers and
sisters in Christ as he loved us, and we are to submit to oneanother,
putting the others needs before our own.  I therefore cannot
accept that Paul is teaching
mutual love and sub-mission between believers on one hand, but saying
on the other hand "unless they are married.  In that case do as the
world does - the husband is the boss".     

I should point out that I am married and that both my husband and I
are Christians.  We do not (and have explicitly decided not to)
practice the "male headship" model. We decided this before we got
married and have not regretted that decision.  

Hope this is of some interest.

Alison
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The month for the Passover
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:42:47 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: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (10-8)
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:15:14 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Thursday, October 8:

     I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just 
as I have loved you, that you all love one another.  <John 13: 34>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: music to How Great Thou Art
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:21:45 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

I would like to thank those who responded to my request to
information about the music to How Great Thou Art. 

The music seems to be a Swedish folk melody. The original 
Swedish words were by Carl Boberg. The English words were by
Stuart K. Hine. The arrangement of the music was by R.J. Hughes.
There is also an earlier English language version which appears in a
hymnal of the Evangelical Covenant Church of America (which
is an offshoot of the Swedish Mission Convent to which Rev. Boberg
belonged.

The above is a summary of the responses I received. Thanks to all.

                                           Myron Hlynka
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Suggestions about 1Cor.14:22-25?
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:40:38 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Oct.9.05.19.47.1992.15137@geneva.rutgers.edu> winter@censis.utas.edu.au (Derek Nicholas Winter) writes:
>Hello folks,
>
>        I recently had reason to read through a few chapters in 1Cor., and
>I would greatly appreciate any commets explaining the verses 1Cor14:22-25.
>These verses are apparently rather contradictory of each other, and I would
>be interested in the opinions of the other members of this 'group.
>        Please feel free to post or email replies as appropriate.

I  agree that this passage can be confusing.  One thing that I think helps to
clarify this passage is to pay careful attention to what a sign is.  The Jews
in the New Testament wanted a sign from Jesus, some indication that they
could look for to be fulfilled to show that what He said was true.  
Jesus gave them the sign of the prophet Jonah (which has been discussed on
here recently.)  He would rise from the dead.  

Verse 21 quotes an Old Testament verse.  Tounges is a fulfillment of this
verse, and therefore it is a sign to unbelievers.  Verses 23 and 24 deal
with how tounges are to be used.  If unbelievers come into a meeting where
everyone is speaking in tounges, they will not understand (not all unbelievers
understand the sign.)  Prophecy, of course, can be used to convict the heart
of unbelievers and of the unlearned.

Link Hudson.
From: amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: MEN > WOMEN  "...because the Bible tells me so..."
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:09:40 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin

It could be because our news server is slow, but I haven't seen any
women enter this discussion about "headship" of the marriage/family.
All I've seen is men, either just offering their own opinions or
saying, "If you asked my wife this is what she'd say."

Christian women, what do you think?  I'd really like to know... and to
hear it from *you*.

-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
From: scott@clmqt.marquette.MI.US (Scott Reynolds)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:31:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: geneva.Oct.16.22.31.51.1992.29209

In <Oct.14.22.38.29.1992.25417@geneva.rutgers.edu>
	cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board) writes:

>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.

I assume you accept the constitutionality of the income tax amendment,
then; this view in itself is debatable but inappropriate for this
newsgroup.  It's not that I doubt that taxes are necessary, because at
this point they obviously are, but that Congress had the authority to
add this amendment is dubious.  I'd suggest some personal research.

Assuming, however, that income taxes are legal, it's important to
understand that the taxes are there to do things that we, the people,
want them to.  Build roads, educate us and our kids, protect us, and
yes, even entertain us (ever gone to see fireworks on July 4?).  The
charitable donation exemptions allow the individual to put money to work
in a way that they want, rather than to be dictated by someone else.
The government is _us_;  by allowing such an exemption, all of us are
recognizing the right to freedom of religion because we are allowing
people to direct the use of some of their money.
-- 
scott@clmqt.marquette.MI.US       |      Ich bin ein Virus.  Mach' mit und
Scott Reynolds                  --+--    kopiere mich in Deine .signature.
Enterprise Information System     |
"My Lord and my God!" Jn 20:28    |
From: CXAD@musica.mcgill.ca (CXAD000)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: RE: Death of Absolutes
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:36:32 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <Oct.6.00.06.07.1992.8391@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
[deleted Luther quote and statement summing up ancient history
of thought ...]                                                          so

>     Today, the whole idea of thinking has put us standing on our heads.  The
>change in thinking came on the wings of humanistic philosophy.  Prior to Hegel
>or Kant, men had a concept of thinking that went something like this:  a cause
>produced an effect that in itself became a cause that produced an effect...
>Even up to Kant, this could be said, but after Hegel we see a radical change
>take place in how man developed his methodology.  It has now become:  a thesis
>that is set up against an antithesis which produces a synthesis which itself
>becomes a thesis..........

Hegel did not create the dialectical process.  In fact, it lies
at the foundation of philosophy, for Socrates' method was the
definition of dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis).

>     Because of this, instead of having an unbroken line of cause and effect
>whereby one could deal with truth or error, or in the area of morals where we
>could have right from wrong, we now have relativism with its and/both.  The
>either/or concept of methodology of absolutism/fixed point is now dead for all
>practical living.

You seem to equate Hegel here with relativism.  In fact, I don't
think anything could be further from the truth.  How does cause/effect
lead directly to right/wrong?  This step into relativism seems quite
unjustified.

>     I would be remiss if I didn't clear up a misnomer about absolutism and the
>Christian.  When people begin to think in absolutes, there is a danger of
>making everything absolute that we ourselves wish to be absolute.  Not
>everything is an absolute!  I think we, as fundamentalist, have been poor in
>our definitions because we have not been careful in pointing this fact out.  In
>our battle against relativism, too often we have allowed nearly every area in
>life to be governed as if there were a Scriptural absolute speaking at that
>particular place.  It simply isn't so, and Paul points that out in his theology
>of tolerance.  Also, we do not think our absolutes through.  Just becaue a
>thing is morally wrong because God/Bible says it, does that mean we are to
>harshly place that burden upon a society that does not, and can not live up to
>the Xian ethic?

If you explain a bit more what you mean by absolute?  Are you
equating absolute=universal?  Are you saying absolute =/ Hegel?
How can you account for the fact that all of Hegel's philosophy
is built up upon the idea of the Absolute, that ALL thought is
leading toward the Absolute, and that the ultimate Absolute=God?

[I fear you're using absolute in very different ways.  I'm not sure
I can define either of them, as I don't find that either makes 
sense to me, but as moderator I strongly suggest that you clarify
your terms before you try any further discussions.  --clh]
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Something to keep in mind....
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:17:44 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

In article <Oct.7.01.16.05.1992.10692@geneva.rutgers.edu> fed!m1slw01@uunet.uu.net (Shay Woodside) writes:
>GOD IS NOT MAN...

Absolutely.

>GOD IS NOT A CHRISTIAN...

Christian meaning little Christ's, this is true since God is not a man.  But,
God is Christ and Christ is God.  Christians are to be true imitators of God 
and Christ.

>WE CHRISTIANS DO NOT OWN HIM...

No, but He owns us.  And He declares in His Word Christ as the exclusive means 
of righteousness unto salvation.

..and that we must strive with others to convey this point.

[II Corinthians 5:20-21]

John [the unrequested but compelled evangelist]
From: winter@censis.utas.edu.au (Derek Nicholas Winter)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Suggestions about 1Cor.14:22-25?
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:19:48 GMT

Hello folks,

        I recently had reason to read through a few chapters in 1Cor., and
I would greatly appreciate any commets explaining the verses 1Cor14:22-25.
These verses are apparently rather contradictory of each other, and I would
be interested in the opinions of the other members of this 'group.
        Please feel free to post or email replies as appropriate.

        thanks in advance,

                Regards,
                        Derek. 
Derek Winter                     |   elm: Derek.Winter@censis.utas.edu.au
Cen. for Spatial Info. Studies --+-- phone: +61 02 202108 (work)
GPO Box 252C, Hobart             |          +61 02 234069 (home)
Tasmania, 7001, Australia        |   fax:   +61 02 240282

[Let me try.  I should note that I looked this up in in Gordon Fee's
commentary on 1 Cor.  However his explanation is sufficiently
convoluted that I'm not sure whether what I'm saying is the same or
not.  Don't blame him for this...

You need to look at this in the context of the quotation from Is. in
vs. 21.  Paul is clearly opposed to uninterpreted tongues.  (I don't
think he's opposed to tongues in general, but to tongues used in a way
that doesn't communicate anything.)  vs. 21 sees tongues as something
God sends to people who are in a hopeless state of rebellion against
him, as a sign.  Like the better known Is 6:9 ff: hear and hear but do
not understand.  He seems to be using "unbelievers" in two rather
different ways, which leads to the confusion.  In 21 and 22, he seems
to imply that tongues are a sign of condemnation of unbelievers, not a
way of transmitting information.  That is, when he says tongues are
"for unbelievers", I take this as meaning, not that they are something
for the benefit of unbelievers, as he says of prophecy in vs 24, but
that they are something that God uses as a sign of condemnation of
unbelievers.  Prophecy is what he uses to communicate to people who
are teachable.

He then gives an example of how this works, using what I think is a
very confusing choice of terms: he uses as his example of usefulness
how well something works in communicating to an unbeliever.  This
second use of "unbeliever" is what creates the confusion, since in
21/22 tongues are for unbelievers but now in 23/24 we have the exact
reverse.  In fact I think the kind of unbeliever he has in mind is
very different.  In 21/22 he's referring to non-communication with a
people who has rejected God.  In 23/24, he's talking about people who
haven't heard the message yet, but who will be convicted when they do.
In both cases, his view of tongues and prophecy is consistent: tongues
are non-communication, and prophecy is the way God communicates.
What's different is the kind of nonbeliever he's talking about.  In
the first case, God intends non-communication, and in the second case
communication.

(I think my explanation is at least as complex as Fee's.  I hope this
makes sense.)

--clh]
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 10636@geneva.rutgers.edu, alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:
>
>Turning to the NT, it seems to me that the two rules of behaviour in
>the Kingdom are Love and Submission.  We are to love our brothers and
>sisters in Christ as he loved us, and we are to submit to oneanother,
>putting the others needs before our own.  I therefore cannot
>accept that Paul is teaching
>mutual love and sub-mission between believers on one hand, but saying
>on the other hand "unless they are married.  In that case do as the
>world does - the husband is the boss".     
>

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

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|