HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - K31)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Women in Christ, issue of the 90s
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:33:14 GMT
Reply-To: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center

Yup the rubber is really hitting the road.  The role of women in
church *be silent* has been oft discussed, but this issue isn't done
by far.  Gotta hand it to Satan!  This provides a heck of a fertile ground
for splintering churches and marriages.

Needless to say, this wasn't a real big issue in the early church.
Women were close to chattel status as a general rule.  During most of
our barbaric past as a "civilization", women never had a fair chance to
be treated as equals due to the physically stronger more aggressive
nature of malekind.  In fact, the so called headship teachings and
marriage teachings in the bible almost certainly elevated the status
of (married) women of "The Way".

Even throughout this century there has been a lot of rhetoric, but
true equality seems partly mired in inertia.  Nevertheless, one of the
social effects of industrialization and the information age is a
further elevating of the status of women.  This appeals to the humanist
philosphy of the hour.  So marvelous for the secular world.

So what about the children of God's kingdom here on earth, what should
they think.  We have had several postings by women, christians, who have
rejected the "traditional interpretation of headship".  They are not alone.
For purposes of evangelism, I stay in very close contact with three
churches, two of them are having some real problems with this issue, one
of them (a big church) has the problem at the at the pastorship level.
So are these women who are pushing for/admittting to leadership roles
in the church and home... committing a *GASP* sin?  Maybe.  I think
it wouldn't hurt to look away from the maybe possibly sin of commission
and have a good look at the (IMO) for sure sin of ommission.

Where are the mighty men? Such as king David had: mighty men.
I see a real shortage of strong, faithful, Godly men, leaders.
We are talking serious submission, to submit to the leadership of
Joe Wimpy Technoweenie..... and I'll be the first to admit that term
can be applied to me. 

Stephen
From: christian@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Soc.religion.christian archives are now available via FTP
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:35:16 GMT

The soc.religion.christian archives are now available via FTP.  They
are on info.rutgers.edu, in pub/soc.religion.christian.  Note that
this is not an archive of all previous postings.  However contains
FAQ's and various other related things.  

Here's the README:

---begin---

This is the soc.religion.christian archives.

Directories:
 faq - answers to frequently answered questions.  These are intended to
	be primarily informational, and not to advocate specific
	positions.  Most were written by the moderator.
 mine - position papers written by the moderator.  These express his
	personal views.
 others - position papers written by others.  They often do not agree
	in views with the moderator.

Files:
 faq/INDEX - a brief description of many of the files in the three
	directories above.
 logfile - a log of all postings accepted.  Note that sometimes the
	same posting will appear several times, if there were technical
	problems getting it posted.  Also, some postings may appear here
	and then in rejectlog, if for example inews rejected it because
	it had too much quoted material.
 rejectlog - a log of all postings rejected.
 charter - the charter for soc.religion.christian.

---end---

This host, info.rutgers.edu, is where our Campus-Wide Information
System resides.  It has some files of possible interest to readers of
s.r.c.  To access to the CWIS, simply telnet to info.rutgers.edu.  You
might want to follow the menu path library/reference/religion.  You'll
find a Bible (KJV), the Mormon canon (BOM, D&C, etc, regarded as a
single work, since that way you can do searches over everything) and
Koran.  (I mean no insult to other religions -- these are the only
canonical works I've found free machine-readable copies of.)
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (10-7)
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:56:11 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Wednesday, October 7:

     Continue to love your enemies and to do good and to lend without 
interest, not hoping for anything back; and your reward will be great, 
and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind toward the 
unthankful and wicked.  Continue becoming merciful, just as your Father 
is merciful.  <Luke 6: 35, 36>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Created in his image?
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:22:34 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>If you jettison God's impassibility, however, you must be prepared also
>to jettison God's other three "metaphysical attributes"--timelessness,
>immutability, and -- what's the other one? Probably that metaphysical
>albatros, infinity. But if these go, much of the substance of the Christian 
>philosophical/theological tradition goes with it.  Are you prepared to go
>that far?

No, I wouldn't.  But I don't follow your reasoning.  Are you saying that,
because God is timeless (outside time?), he must then have no emotions?
If so, then the same reasoning would seem to imply that he has no
thoughts, either.  If I'm not on the right track, could you please explain
why you think that denying impassibility leads to denial of the others.
--
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: cctr058@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz (Robin Harrington, CSC)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:13:45 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <Oct.7.01.12.50.1992.10636@geneva.rutgers.edu>, 
alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:
> 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.

The major difficulty with the "curse" theory is that the Genesis
prescription for marriage in Genesis 2:20-24 occurs before the fall.

Here the ideal of complementarity is highlighted and it is to this
ideal we should be returning not an equality ideal that has non-Biblical 
roots. Besides, we would need to re-write Ephesians 5 to fit this ideal.

> 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".

Love, respect and submission is a theme that runs through the whole NT
and they affect all aspects of our lives, not just church or married life.
But they are conditioned by our gifts and calling, these often providing
the framework under which they are lived out.

Regards
Robin
From: v112pxk6@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (WFFT 104.9FM - Magic Man in the Morning (Eric))
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Need advice... and some help...
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:09:31 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo

My fiance is a Mormon, but she wishes for that to change... as do I... but
what would be a good line of action?... if she doesn't get the fellowship
and teachings that she should, she more than likely revert back.. plus she
lives in Maine, and I'm in NY... I can't be there... do you know of any church
in Fort Kent, ME that she might be able to attend?... thanks...
						Eric
From: samk@microsoft.com (Sam Kho)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:17:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>As an atheist this disturbs me. It looks like we DO have government
>subsidies for religious proslytizing.  True, this is not a direct government
>expenditure - but every time this man gives money to to further Christian
>propaganda, money that would have gone to the US treasury doesn't. So someone
>else (all of us, actually) must pay more. I'm curious what the Christian
>viewpoints are on forcing non-believers to support your religion through
>charitable deduction laws, property tax exemptions,etc?

i am absolutely against forcing non-believers to fund Christianity.  and for
that matter, i'm even against having non-believers fund Christianity
voluntarily.

HOWEVER, charitable deduction laws, property tax exemptions, etc. are by no
means Christians forcing non-Christians to fund Christianity.  the Christian
is obligated to pay only as much taxes as legally required.  the US treasury
does not have any claim on the LEGAL deductions that a Christian takes on
his giving.  NOBODY else has to pay more (if i pay $4000 because i took some
deductions as opposed to $5000 if i did not, does anybody's tax go up by
$1000?).  all of us must pay more (later) ONLY IF congress spends beyond its
means.  and a lot of where congress overspends is on social programs that r
the responsibility of Christian Churches.  so in fact, the Christian is being
forced (thru taxation) to support competition (secular social programs) against
his Church.

DISCLAIMER:  i'm not against taxes.  the Christian is still to render unto
Caesar what is Caesar's (but he doesn't have to render unto Caesar more than
that).

  - sam -
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help Needed
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:30:13 GMT
Organization: FNAL

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
a "god."  i.e. a grand designer.  Hoyle is a world class mathematician and has
stated that there can be no doubt, because of the grand scale amount of
diversity within the unity, that there has to be a "god."  I put it in quotes
because he probably is thinking of some kind of naturalistic deity.  But there
are many who could take it from there and present the necessity of an
infinite/personal deity.  For Hoyle to come this far is not to be dismissed as
a by note.
From: IK20050@maine.maine.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Would like to talk with LDS members...
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:03:28 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

Hi!
I'm new to this newsgroup, and I would like to chat with
other LDS members, because I have alot of questions I need
answered.

Please e-mail me!  Thanks so much!
                                   Andie.
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Created in his image?
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:59:46 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

>[The volition and intellect seem clear.  I though that classically God
>was said to be impassible, and that this implied a lack of emotions.
>I'm not sure I agree with this, but I am suspicious of a definition
>that makes emotion a required part of being in the image of God.
>--clh]

God being impassible is an example of Greek philosophy's influence on
Christian doctrine.  To maintain that God doesn't have emotions, you
have to say that the descriptions of God having emotions (e.g. being
grieved and having his heart filled with pain, Gen 6:6; love and hate,
Mal 1:2-3) are metaphors.  I think that it is better to ditch the idea
of God being impassible, since it seems to be in conflict with the
plain reading of Scripture.
--
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: aslt@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Women in Christ, issue of the 90s
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:14:00 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

Interesting that you should mention conflict and divisiveness...  My question
(and it is debatable whether it is germane to this specific discussion) is
whether the 'misinterpretations' of NT text and the admitted historical 
injustices vis a vis the-female-of-the-species justify the 'politically 
correct' man-bashing that has infiltrated its way from secular America 
into current Christian teaching and thought.

I freely admit that after being told ad nausem for the majority of my thinking
life how bad/evil/wicked/disgusting/abusive/bestial Men are responsible 
for everything that is bad/evil/wrong with the universe up to and including the 
extinction of the dinosaurs, I am a little sensitive and touchy about this. 
Especially when I hear it implied in Sunday AM teaching...from people who
should know better.  We are ALL (male/female, Jew/Greek, slave/free)
bad/evil/wicked/disgusting/abusive/bestial and are ALL only capable of being
made better through Christ's direct intervention in our personalities and
lives.

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now...*sigh*...and let the bandwidth get back to
more important things like how to tell folks who couldn't care less about how
they need Christ and what He did for them...

[That interesting.  The Presbyterian Church (USA) is reasonably
progressive on women's roles.  I've seen some hymns that I think
slightly unesthetic and some liturgy that I think is marginally
heretical, but nothing anti-male.  --clh]
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dating...
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:20:05 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>Imagine, 46 % !

Well, that's not too hard to imagine.  It's not as if one could
someday say "I should start dating", and voila, next Saturday you've
found someone worth dating that thinks you're worth dating.
It still implies that over half of the single women under 30
*are* dating, which is quite a large number in my opinion.

I think it might be better if people who found someone who
interests them and who they know and trust *then* they
get together and date, rather than spending all the time
being in "am dating" or "am not dating" mode.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu  --  How come my mind went off for lunch before I did?
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Pauline Paradoxes (Re: Suggestions about 1Cor.14:22-25?)
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:00:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

[ Derek Winter asked about the seeming contradiction in Paul's statements
about tongues in I Cor 14: 21-22 vs 23-24.  clh summarized Fee's position
that these two verses use the notion "unbeliever" in two different senses:
the willfully rebellious versus the merely unevangelized. ]

I am aware of two major approaches to the several apparently
deliberate Pauline "paradoxes" in I Corinthians.  Fee exemplifies a
synthetic approach, trying to harmonize the two opposing statements.
But in doing so, he must appeal to elements never made explicit in
Paul's own argument (e.g., Paul never explains the subtle "unbeliever"
word ambiguity, nor does he exploit it again).  So was Paul expecting
his audience to be as astute for nuances as Fee, or was he simply
failing to explain himself well?  There is nothing inherently wrong,
of course, in concluding that Paul was sometimes just unclear; Peter
said as much.

Others interpreters, like Walter Kaiser, have suggested that no
harmonization is intended; Paul is simply presenting two sides,
seemingly arguing for the first (slightly caricatured and sometimes
buttressed with Scripture out of context), but then suddenly turning
to demolish what he has built, revealing his true views.  Vintage "set
'em up, knock 'em down".  The articles I have read about common
structures of Jewish theological argumentation incline me to judge
this non-synthetic approach as *slightly* more economical.  To modern
ears, this might seem to be likening Paul's techniques of argument to
frivolous sarcasm, but they would not have been heard as impertinent,
unsound, or even unscholarly back then.

Whatever approach one chooses for exigeting the paradoxes, it makes
sense, _prima facie_, to apply it uniformly throughout I Corinthians.
But be warned that for a couple of the paradoxes, differences in
exigetical approach lead to more blatantly divergent interpretations
than in the case of 14:21-25.  For example, one non-synthetic approach
to I Cor. 11 leads to viewing Paul as unambiguously antagonistic to
those who had made head covering an issue in Corinth; one reads not
agreement but irony in his initial argument _pro_ their position.

Pay your nickel and take your choice.

Van Kelly
vek@allegra.att.com
From: bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Copt-Net Newsletter
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:22:10 GMT

This is to  let you know  that  the second Copt-Net Newsletter has been
issued. The highlights of this issue include : 

    1. Coptic Art
    2. Al-Muharraq Monastery
    3. Saint Maurice and the Theban Legion
    4. Anba Abraam, the friend of the poor (part 2)

The highlights of the first issue include :

    1. An introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church
    2. The Great Lent from the Coptic Encyclopedia
    3. The Nicene Creed from Encyclopedia Britanica
    4. Touristic and historic Coptic sites in Egypt
    4. Anba Abraam, the friend of the poor (part 1)

    
The  Copt-Net Newsletter is an electronic publication of Copt-Net.  The 
following is an excerpt from Copt-Net's Charter:

  Purpose
  -------
    Copt-Net is  a  Christian  fellowship dedicated  for the service of
    the emigrant Coptic Orthodox community. Copt-Net Digest is the main
    forum for communication between Copt-Net members, who are committed
    to the Orthodox  Christian  faith of the  Coptic   Church  and  are
    interested  in its service.   Copt-Net Newsletter  is an electronic
    publication that is intended for  a more diverse  audience of other
    Christians and non-Christians who are  genuinely interested in  the
    faith, teachings, and traditions of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and
    the history and culture of the Copts.

  Disclaimer
  ----------
    Copt-Net is not an organization or an association.  Its  Digest and
    Newsletter are  not  professional magazines. Opinions  expressed on
    Copt-Net belong to those individuals voicing  them.  In particular,
    they do  not represent in any  way or form, directly or indirectly,
    the  positions or  opinions  of the  Coptic   Orthodox  Church, its
    hierarchy, or its lay  councils.  Any member  of  Copt-Net who uses
    Copt-Net's  name  or  Logo to  suggest  or  mean   the  contrary is
    violating this Charter.

If you  wish  to be included in the  CN-Newsletter mailing list, please  
contact Amgad Bassili <bassili@cs.arizona.edu>. 

--Amgad bassili
From: andy2@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Andy)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: 3 days post
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:24:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: geneva.Oct.16.01.24.58.1992.27260

The Sign of the Prophet Jonah

I'll try to keep this as brief as possible.  Recently, there was a post
saying that the sign of the Prophet Jonah was that Jesus was in the
grave for 3 days and 3 nights.  I used to believe that until I took
a closer look at it.

I discovered that, not only does that take liberties with the translation,
but also skips a lot of symbolism, not only in the case of Jonah (who was
abandoned, sacrificed, received a crown, etc.), but also with the example
of the sacrifice of Isaac, and with the timing of the Passover in Egypt.

The so-called last supper was the Passover the year Jesus died.  By that
time (by taking liberties with scripture and by changing Deut 16), there
were two Passovers observed.  The domestic (correct) observance and the
temple (incorrect) observance, kept by the Pharisees.

The lamb was to be selected the 10th of Nisan (the triumphal entry - palm
Sunday - the first day of the week), that would make the 15 on Friday.
The domestic observance began at the start of the 14th of Nisan (Wednesday
night - which began Thursday).

There is no doubt that the 15th of Nisan in the year A.D. 30 was on Friday
(beginning Thursday evening).

Take the symbolism in scripture (as mentioned above), find the word
in Exodus 12 (and elsewhere) that Dr. James Strong did not index (and
why), remember that Josephus was a Pharisee, and then understand what
Jesus did and why.  Finally then, you will see what Jesus meant as the
only sign of His Messiahship actually was.

End of hints.

[As far as I know, the idea of two passover dates in only a
hypothesis.  I haven't seen anyone claim that there's clear
evidence for it.  Do you know of any?  --clh]
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:38:26 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>Nick (Friend of Entropy) and I continue the discussion:
[I have omitted some --clh]
>Well no, I wasn't implying God's judgment is flawed, but that equality
>of the sexes is a new concept that might well not survive another quarter
>of a century... put more bluntly, you could be wrong here.  
>
>Put aside the "current state of sexual politics" as you put it.  Now
>in strict logical truth, do men = women?  No!  The ability to conceive
>comes to mind immediatly.  Now why oh why would you bet your immortal
>soul on such an issue?
>

"Equality" does not mean "the same as."  In the sense that you have given here,
then, black != white, and therefore racism can be justified.  Just because
members of a group don't share the same characteristics doesn't mean that
the members are unequal.

>Nick, I didn't brush off God's view on the sexes, I brushed off your
>view.  I am asking you to ask yourself about how many generations there
>have been in the history of the world?  How many generations have considered
>the sexes equal?  One generation, sort of, in some parts of the world?
>I, surprise surprise, side with God's Word on this issue.

For thousands of years, mankind believed that disease was caused by evil
spirits that invaded the body.  In fact, the whole notion of microrganisms
is only a few hundred years old.  Do you, therefore, believe that evil spirits
cause disease?  In addition, the concept of Democracy is only practiced in
some parts of the world, and the history of its tradition pales in comparison
to the tradition of monarchy and despotism.  Do you therefore reject Democracy
as a valid form of government?

Just because an idea is relatively new or practiced over a small area of the
world doesn't make it invalid.  I seem to remember a time when Christianity
was only a tiny splotch in a vast pagan empire, and it's ideas of one God who
became totally human to die for our sins were as new as equality between the
sexes is today.  

Tom Ault