HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gslade@cyberstore.ca (Greg Slade)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Adultery, non-marital sex, and forgiveness
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:58:05 GMT
Organization: Cyberstore Online Information Systems Inc.

jcj@tellabs.com wrote:
: I have a question about what I see as an apparent contradiction regarding
: adultery (I apologize if this has been discussed before).  The OT position
: is clear in the Commandments, but in the NT where so much emphasis is put 
: on forgiving and forgiveness, Jesus Himself said that the only grounds for
: divorce was adultery.  But how can a Christian ask that his/her trespasses
: be forgiven as those who trespass against him/her if they won't forgive 
: his/her spouse (even for adultery)?  If we should judge not lest we be 
: judged, how can we say that an adulterer is any worse than any of us?  
: What about not casting the first stone?  What am I missing here?  
:
I think it's vital that we keep in mind the distinction between permitting
something and commanding it.  Jesus said that adultery was grounds for
divorce, but He didn't state that adultery forces divorce.  As several 
respondents have already noted, it depends on the rest of the relationship.
The most important point to remember in interpreting any passage is to read
it for what it actually *says*, not for what we think it means.  Matthew 5
*allows* people to divorce on the basis of adultery (and no other).  The clear
sense of the passage is that marriage is so important that it takes a total
betrayal of the marriage vows by one's partner to make ending the marriage
permissible.  It is not necessary to construe that to mean that adultery
makes it *necessary* to divorce. 
 
: That also raises the issue of non-marital sex.  Can a Christian say 
: with clear conscious to a potential spouse, "I can't marry you because you 
: had sex with your high school honey/ex-fiancee/whatever"?  If we are 
: taught to forgive then we should also forgive them that, shouldn't we?
: You might say a *true* Christian would wait for marriage, but we also
: know the flesh can be weak, people are sinful (willingly and unwittingly)
: and people make mistakes.  What about someone who is new to the
: faith and truly regrets their past?
: 
The same principal applies here.  Clearly, it is better to "save yourself for
marriage".  I have gone out with many women who were more "experienced" than
I am, and every single one of them was battling "ghosts" left over from 
previous relationships.  Many times I had to say, "I am not your ex, I'm 
*me*!"  Nevertheless, it is possible to get past those ghosts and build a good
strong relationship.  Sexual purity is not a "pass/fail" state, only one of
the factors to take into consideration.  Personally, I rank simple sanity
rather high on my list of priorities in a prospective mate.  Previous sexual
experience is the same as adultery within the marriage.  It does not make 
continuing the marriage impossible, only more difficult.
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: out of the mouths of babes
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:58:28 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

My 8 year old son had communion for about the 3rd time last Sunday
(Our church recently decided to allow children to have communion.)
When he had the bread (which was home-made by a church member), he
said, "Mmm, tasty".  I replied, "Yes it is, but we are really supposed
to be thinking about Jesus and his body."  He thought for a moment,
then responded, "I know, the good taste of the bread can help me think
about how good God is".

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

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | It's hard to seize the
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | day when you must first
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | grapple with the morning.
From: steve@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Steve Mitchell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: kirkin' of the tartans
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:29:07 GMT
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA

Every year at the end of January my parish has a mass followed by a
ceilidh to celebrate the feast of St. MacGlastian (a 9th century
bishop remembered for working to mitigate the effects of the
Dalraidian conquest of the Picts in Fife).  This year we're
celebrating the feast on Saturday the 30th.  During the mass we have a
Kirkin of the Tartans.  What this has been so far is that immediately
before the offeratory a piper comes to the alter rail and then plays a
suitable anthem as he processes around the church.  Everyone wishing
to present a tartan, clan badge, or other emblem falls in behind the
piper, who eventually leads them back to the alter rail.  Then they
lay their things on the rail, and the priest pronounces a blessing
over them.  The people return to their places, and the mass proceeds.

Now, the ceremony just described was created by myself and our priest,
based on sketchy reports we had heard of Kirkin's held at other
churches in the area.  If anyone reading this group has hard
information on how these ceremonies are usually held (especially at
(any flavor) catholic churches), or has any suggestions on how we
might improve on the liturgy described above, I would be greatful to
hear from you.

Email replies would be appreciated, as they will probably reach me
faster and the feast is this Saturday.  Thanks to everyone for your inputs.
-- 

                           -  Steve Mitchell
College Park Software           steve@cps.altadena.ca.us
461 W. Loma Alta Dr.		818-791-9153 (voice)
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:02:48 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

In article <Jan.22.03.55.40.1993.6114@athos.rutgers.edu>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:
|> Can somebody enlighten me on this question:
|> 
|> If God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does He allow sufferings
|> to exist?  Why did He create humankind with the propensity for
|> Greed, Hatred and Delusions and then allow us to murder and harm
|> each other?
|> 
|> Thanks
|> 
|> C. M. Tan

Good question worth a full course of theology.  Read Job; read Elie
Weisel's Night ... We as created finite beings cannot understand why
God created us, let alone why he created us with free will.  But free
will can exist only if there is choice.  That choice is for or against
God - and choice against God permits "evil".  Humans were not created
with a propensity towards evil but with the capacity to choose against
God; the propensity towards evil is the result of that first choice.
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A beginner's question
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:24:59 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <Jan.25.00.41.26.1993.4572@athos.rutgers.edu>, arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
> In <Jan.22.03.47.52.1993.6062@athos.rutgers.edu> ross@cc.gatech.edu (Rosario DSouza, J) writes:
> 
> >Hi,
> 
> >I am a relatively new Christian, and I have the following question.
> 
> >Some people tell me that some parts of the Bible should be taken
> >literally, and some parts should not. My question is: how does one
> >discern which parts are to be taken literally and which should not?
> 
> Well, I think that it's important to read the Bible from the point
> of view of the writers.  They could only convey what was inspired
> by God by how the understood the world at the time.

That is, if you don't believe that God literally inspired His Word,
2 Tim 3,16-17.

> 	The Bible is literature.  It contains many levels of meaning.
> When Jesus made a blind man see, there are many levels.  The man could
> have been literally blind and Jesus healed his eyes so that he could see.
> The man might have been blind only in a metaphorical sense.  He just didn't
> understand.  He couldn't 'see'.  Then Jesus made him 'see'.  That is
> understand.
> 	Personally, I can relate more to the second interpretation.
> And I think that it is much more important.  If you try to read the Bible
> in only a literal sense, you will most likely go blind.

If one believes in an omnipotent God, and believes Jesus when he says
He is God, believing that he could cause a blind man to see shouldn't
be a problem... In addition, I think that literal happenings can also
have spiritual meanings. 1 Cor 10,6.

I think that one should take a passage literally when it is presented
as a literal event (Gen 1 and the miracles, for example). Som times
it's stated that it's symbolic (parables, for example). Also prophecies
and dreams are often symbolical.

The key point is that you should always, when studying the Bible, pray that
the Holy Spirit may show you the meanings of the things you read. 1 Cor
1,17 - 2,16. You need to understand the Scriptures with your heart, not
your mind. Eph 1,17-19. Prov 3,5.

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
    E-MAIL: david-s@ifi.hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: lise@kepler.cc.bellcore.com (romanov,elisabeth)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mary an Ethiopian?
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:27:53 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <Jan.20.00.03.01.1993.677@geneva.rutgers.edu> wm1o+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Karamo Motley) writes:
>>The Black Madonna is not black; that is, the woman represented is
>>not of African extraction.  Rather, the icon is heavily stained 
>>from years of smoke and incense burned before it.
>
>The Black Madonna is not white either.

There's a lot of history and legend associated with the Madonna of
Czestowcha--one such legend is that the icon is a portrait of Mary painted
from life.  Now, as unlikely as that is, it nevertheless raises the 
interesting point that Mary was a Jew from Palestine.  So you wouldn't
expect her to be "white", would you?  Properly she should be dark-complected.

Traditional religious painting tends to depict idealized images of Jesus
and the Blessed Mother in the aesthetic of the artist's time and place.  
That's not really a problem--it's art.  But over time we have tended to
cross mediocre art with excessive sentiment, leading to nonsense like blue-eyed
effeminate Jesus holding baby lambs, which people virtually take to be a
portrait.
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:45:47 GMT
Reply-To: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Organization: Paging, Wireless Data Group of Motorola, Inc.

In article <Jan.25.00.32.43.1993.4423@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> In article <Jan.22.03.36.19.1993.5836@athos.rutgers.edu>,
> Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry) says:
> >
> >   If I drop an anvil over my foot I "believe" it will fall, and I move my
> >foot!  It is hard to ignore a physical sensitivity.  We also have similar
> >spiritual sensitivities, with resulting sureness.  Why should that be in
> >conflict with science?
> 
> Because I have no idea what these 'spiritual sensitivities' are!
> You were expecting this, weren't you? I think I understand what you
> mean by 'physical sensitivity,' that is, the senses. But what is this
> spiritual version? ESP or somesuch? Whatever it is, I don't have it.
> At least, I don't think I have it. Perhaps you could explain what
> these 'spiritual sensitivities' are, that I might understand the
> concept.
> 
> Martin Schulte

I guess I should have prepared for it, anyway!  Well, we are supposed to be 
ready to explain the hope that is within us!
   I guess I would say you cannot determine the mental "world" does not exist 
because you (science) cannot measure it, albeit you can see/measure some 
coincidental occurances of brain activity.  We can also see the effect of 
emotions, but I doubt we could prove they exist or explain them STANDALONE.  
That is, YOU would understand, because you have experienced all these things.  
In the final analysis, my spiritual sensitivities are experiential in nature, 
even though I did not want it to be this way!
   It seemed to me too many people based their religion on their emotions, so 
if there was to be a God for me, I wanted it to be a non-emotional 
experience.  I also did not want a God that I had to create - if I was to 
know God, I wanted to know him, not form him.
   I would describe a parallel to the reality of pain.  We have shared the 
experience in the physical (who hasn't?).  Now I know when I am closer to, 
and farther away from God, depending on the comfort of closeness and pain of 
separation.  (I have often wondered if our Hell is not the burning of His 
absence.)  I also have a certainty of knowledge when he has spoken to me, 
sometimes similar to guilt, but different, sometimes in (miraculous) 
coincidences, sometimes in the presence of (an)other Christian, sometimes in 
a dawning realization that *this* was a message for ME (esp. while Bible 
reading or praying).
(BTW, I have never spoken in any language but English and German, and would 
be scared silly if I ever did!)

|  Rick Granberry                          Phone (407) 364-2619 |
|  Motorola Email CRG001             rick_granberry@pts.mot.com |
|  I think we're all Bozos on this Bus!                uh, Clem |
From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: America & Xianity
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:31:36 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada


  I quote:

One must either live by God's authority or live by human reason -man can not
serve 2 masters.

What does this mean? The post was talking about Judeo-christian values in
Western society and claiming that because we have abandoned those
values and embraced secular humanism (I am not quite sure what this is, but
I have an idea) the west is now in moral decay as evidenced by the 
openness of homosexuality and abortion.

My understanding of secular humanisn is that it is a world view that does not
include GOd in its way of running society. (I am open to being corrected).
But it is a bit much to say that abortion and homosexuality are evidence of
some shift away from God and that if we only got back to some imagined
ideal state that we had some time ago all the things that worry us in our
society would disappear.

It may come as a surprise but people have been arrangin abortions since
Egyptian times: the only difference is that now the mother usually survives.
Ditto with homosexuality, it has always been around just not talked about.

we had this supposed golden age of Judeo-Christian laws? The 19th century,
18th 15th when??? The church has always been a minority in  a "pagan"
society, except for a few occasions (Constantin, Mediaeval Europe) and those
times produced the most corrupt and depraved church history has seen 
(remember the Inquisition). 

ANd why must GOd's authority and human reason be opposed to each other?
Does God only command things that are unreasonable? Did he make a world
where the only way to survive is by throwing away the biggest gift he gave
us?                                               

We all recognise that human reason is limited and prone to errors. I
certainly don't make claims for my reasoning ability compared to God's.
BUt I find it hard to think he gave me this ability to test me so
that I have to mistrust everything reason tells me. Why make humans at all
then, surely unthinking dogs would be better creatures to be redeemed.

I wonder if this mistrust of reason (I have come across it in a very rabid
from just recently) comes from some other area than a desire to honour God.
I would be interested in emailing anyone who would care to discuss the
place for reason in a christian faith. I take a fairly high view of it,
so anyone with the opposite view would be welcome. I might be more specific.
If someone of, say, fundamentalist leanings (literal Bible in all parts,
6000 year old Earth, Women cannot speak in church, etc) would like
to correspond on what place human reason has in faith I would be glad.
One caveat though: Discussion involves thinking, not blind quotations, 
in fact, one might say it involves reason. Hmmm, perhaps no one can respond?

julian
From: manning@halley.est.3m.com (Arthur T. Manning)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Where's the online bible?
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:09:11 GMT
Organization: 3M Company, 3M Center, Minnesota, USA

I've recently received the 'online bible' shareware program from a friend.
He got it from Gospel Folio Press, and it contains the Authorized and
Darby bible.  Unfortunately, the install disk is corrupted, including
the READ.ME file that might tell of its origin.
Does anyone know about this software and where I may obtain it?

Thanks
--
Arthur T. Manning   <manning@halley.est.3m.com>                       O
3M Center 518-1    St Paul MN  55144-1000        \___/______         o   
ph. 612 733-4401   fax 612 736-3122             __  / _ _ _  \      .
Allin1--> <MANNING @MRGATE @EST780>            (_/_/_/ / / /_/      <><
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: What is a Christian?
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:58:41 GMT

In article <Jan.20.00.13.39.1993.921@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> Howdy all!  I am doing a bit of research for a college group I am in and 
|> would like anyone and everyone to answer a few questions for me.
|> 
|> 1.  What is the defintion of a Christian?

My answer is:
A Christian is one who accepts Jesus, the Christ, as the incarnation
of God, who died and rose again to bring us back into a healthy relationship
with God, and who has accepted this sacrifice.

|> 
|> 2.  What are some things that people do that makes one not a Christian?

This is more difficult.
Christians, being fallable humans, can, and do, do almost anything at one time
or another.

In general though, I find it hard to credit a true relationship with the God
revealed in the Christ Jesus in people who have hatred and bogotry in thier
hearts.  But that could easily just be my own prejudice (though I can cite
a certain amount of scriptural support for this position).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: mwilliam@cs.ulowell.edu (Marian Williams)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Seeking words of "Non nobis"
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:43:51 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science

In Shakespeare's _Henry V_, after the great battle, King Henry tells
his troops to sing "Non nobis," which is a prayer in Latin.  I would
like to know the words to it, in Latin.  I know it translates
loosely as "Not unto us but to God is the glory."  In the recent movie
of _Henry V_, "Non nobis" is sung as Henry carries a boy's body across the
battlefield, but I can't figure out some of the words by listening.

Can somebody tell me the words?

Thank you!

Marian Williams
williams@Ulowell.edu
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT prophecy about praying for CLINTON
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:20:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Jan.26.04.45.08.1993.15077@athos.rutgers.edu> ogden_jon@macmail1.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:

>Reportedly the President is not a
>Christian in the New Testament sense, but he is someone who is spiritually
>open.  

I'm afraid that I've missed something here:  aren't liberal
Southern Baptists "Christians in the New Testament sense"?  What
exactly is your definition of Christian, and who meets it?

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: yoshi@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil (D M Yoshikami)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: What is Theology? (Is there a Doctor in the House?)
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:55:43 GMT
Organization: National Naval Medical Center

I was told that there were (historically) four doctorates that the medieval
Universities gave out: Doctor of Theology (Th.D.), Doctor of Medicine (M.D.),
Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.D.), and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), the last one
(Ph.D.) being a kind of "kitchen sink" for everything that didn't fit the first
three categories.  I have a couple questions:

1) What is Theology?  What do they study?  What kind of syllabus would, say
   an "Introduction to Theology 101" course have?  What kind of books would
   they consider classic texts?  (The Medical Doctor used to have Galen,
   the Philosophers, of course had Socrates, Aristotle, and Play-Dough :-)
   etc.etc)  Who are the major writers and what were their main points?  I
   haven't met [to my knowledge] someone with a Th.D., so I'm kinda curious.
   Unfortunately, the Dictionary Definition does not give me a good idea of
   what the field is like.  (That's to be expected.... sigh)

2) Were there other doctorates that the medieval Universities gave out?  
   Is there a good book to read on this topic?

3) What is the difference between Philosophy and Theology?  A philosophy text
   cited Augustine and Thomas Aquinas as two biggies in Philosophy, but what
   do the theology people think of them?

DY :-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
D M Yoshikami  :-) ;-) :-) | Internet: yoshikami@usuhsb.ucc.usuhs.nnmc.navy.mil
     +1 (301) 295-3304     | Bitnet  : yoshikami@usuhsb.bitnet
***  !!xob X*NU V METSYS T&TA eht ni renosirp dleh gnieb m`I  !pleH  !pleH  ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: I2LY@cornella.cit.cornell.edu (Fiona)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Is God male, female or neither?
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:48:44 GMT

The question of the gender (or non-gender) of God has been coming up
in a few threads recently, and it is something I have often
wondered about.  Bill Rea quoted a number of passages to the effect that
God cannot be thought of as either male or female, which I absolutelyu
agree with.  We know that God is spirit, that God does not have a physical
body (although of course Jesus came to earth in the flesh).  The very
concepts of male and female seem to me to be inaliebly linked to the
existence of a body (can you tell I'm a biologist?).  Thus it seems
meaningless to me to say God is male.  OF course, the bible talks
about God as male, but it would be even more incorrect IMHO to talk about
God as 'it' than 'He', since this would deny the personal nature of God.
But i really don't see the problem with She, and it seems to me that Bill
was contradicting himself when he first pointed out that God does not have
a gender and then saying 'but you have to use He, not She'.  Of course
the bible does refer to God as HE, but we are certainly not forbidden from
saying 'she'.
   I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.
         Fiona