HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: God's Slaves? (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:13:44 GMT
Organization: Society of Independent Newswaifs

In article <Sep.30.23.43.06.1992.9139@geneva.rutgers.edu>, snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - E41) writes:
> Now, slavery.  I am not brushing off God's view, I am pointing out that
> we ALL choose to be slaves of either God or Satan.  Have you ever noticed
> that people today sell themselves into slavery just as the Jews did?  They
> buy a house with a 30 year mortagage, they enslave themselves to alchohol or
> drugs.  

Hmm, well.  I picked on this part of the post (only one piece of a long
argument, much stuff deleted before and behind) because I'm not happy with the
metaphor of Christians as God's slaves.  Part of it is because I'm a literary
scholar and the word "slave" just doesn't carry the right connotation for me. 
Slavery sounds like an involuntary relationship, and a destructive one -- one
in which the person enslaved is degraded by his/her service.  "Servant" is for
me a better term in the context.  It lacks the a lot of the destructive
connotations, and seems to keep the idea of free choice in their.  Slaves can't
choose not to be slaves anymore; servants must continually renew their
commitment to their service, since they could pack up and leave.  "Servant"
hasn't got as much of a wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee feel as "slave," of
course; I'm willing to grant shock value, but I think it's counterproductive
here.

The other part of my objection comes from John 15:15:

"I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is
doing.  I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have
heard from my Father."

I'd rather be the Lord's servant and friend than his slave.  I think he thinks
so too.


* Liz Broadwell (by643@cleveland.freenet.edu) ***************************
* Department of English                       *   Cor ad Cor Loquitur   *
* The University of Pennsylvania              ***************************
                                    
Newman Centenary Celebration * 1893-1993 * 100 Years of Campus Ministry!
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Councils and canons
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:49:52 GMT

Joe Buehler and Steve Hayes are arguing about authority of churches and
councils.  Frankly, to me the participation of churches (which even Joe
admits of) sounds much more like Eastern or Anglican polity than Roman.

Be that as it may, I've basically come to the conclusion that the question
as it is now framed is unresolvable.  In a tug of war between two churches
over their authority, their authority is clearly not sufficient to resolve
the issue.  The question of authority can only be addressed by attempts at
union or coexistence, or failing that, at the mercy of the reasoning of
individual believers.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Female - Male Sexuality
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:25:08 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

Several serious books by women anthropologists, sociologists etc. have
looked at the differences, between women and men, and humans and primates.

They discuss the fact that human females do not show estrus. That is, there
essentially no observable indication of a woman's state of fertility and
that they may be sexually time. They also consider women
being multiorgasimic and slower to orgasism. From this amd much other data
they arrive at interesting conclusions regarding the evolution of humans.

A major conclusion is that having multiple sex partners has been
genetically advantageous for both females and males. Interesting?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
From: ccliu@next.com (Chang-Chi Liu)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: What is a "personal god" (Re:'my personal savior')?
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:07:30 GMT

Despite of the recent discusion about the personal savior, I am still  
confused about the term "personal god".  I checked the Webster about the  
word "personal', and the following are the definitions:

1: of, relating to, or affecting a person: PRIVATE :done purely for 	  
	personal financial gain,
2a: done in person without the intervention of another; also: proceeding 
	from a single person
2b: carried on between individuals directly : a personal interview 
3: relating to the person or body
4: relating to an individual or his character, conduct, motives, or  
private affairs often in an offensive manner: personal insult.
5a: being rational and self-conscious: personal, responsive government is  
still possible  John Fischer
5b: having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction:  
personal devil
6: of, relating to, or constituting personal property: personal estate
7: denoting grammatical person 
 
I am not sure which definition(s) is the right one.  The "correct" use of  
"personal god" seems to imply definition (2a), and (2b).  How about (5a)  
and (5b)?  The moderator made it clear that a personal god is not a  
private god.  My another question is that where does the term "personal  
god" come from?
From: howard@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Bonnie Howard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Name It & Claim It
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:24:21 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[Someone (Christopher Grawburg?) asked about "Name it and claim it"
simon@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Beverly Simon) responded with a couple of
Scripture references and sources of further information.
--clh]

Hi Chris and everyone else - 

I am not of the Name it and Claim it, but I do believe in a lot of their
teaching because I have used it in the past and it works.  The way I 
have taken their teaching is from Mark 11:23 and someplace in Matthew,
I have been trying to find it - where Jesus says that he has given all
authority that He had - He is giving to us - He said that it would be
even greater.  I think the thing I am trying to say here is that we
should be careful of our tongue and what we say - we talk ourselves 
into things - poverty, joblessness, etc., etc., by the way we talk.
In James it says that a HUGE ship is controlled by the rutter which is
a very little part of the ship - but is very necessary.  The tongue
has great power - we need to watch what we say and learn to talk with
positive conviction - not foolishness and greed... God promised He 
would be with us in the Rose Garden - He didn't promise that there
wouldn't be thorns....
From: cnews@umr.edu (UMR Usenet News Post)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Public Figures
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:08:05 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <Sep.30.23.59.20.1992.9256@geneva.rutgers.edu> ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:
[Farrell's article addressed Sandi Patti's divorce.]
>
>I have found it very difficult to enjoy any artist's message after
>learning that the artist as a person was a living contradiction of
>the content of the work.  There can be no more powerful negation 
>of any work than by its own creator. 
>
>We can't condemn the lady, no. We can't condemn Mr. Warnke, either.
>But who can seriously believe that hearing her songs and then hearing
>that she left her husband (he seeks reconciliation; she has nixed it)
>can have no impact?  Even though we do not pass judgment on her, her
>work is marred.  So too is the work (if we can call a fraudulent book
>"work") of Mr. Warnke. To forgo judgment of them as people is one thing;
>to say their lives are no contradiction, however, is an appalling
>refusal of the facts.

"But what does it matter?  The important thing is that in every way
whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.  And because
of this I rejoice."  --Philippians 1:18 NIV

Warnke's book may not have been a good "work", but I know people have
gotten saved at his concerts.  One of these people lives 40 minutes
from here.

"...so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's 
power."  --1 Corinthians 2:5

Just as Paul's preaching did not rest in men, neither should our
faith become centered around a personality.  I hope we've have
learned this lesson from Bakker, Swaggart, Patti, Warnke, etc.

Let's each make a positive impact on our world at the local level.
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:
to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep
oneself from being polluted by the world." --James 1:27
From: meyr@calvin.edu (Bob Meyering)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: CHRISTAIN SEX
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:14:18 GMT
Organization: Calvin College

In article <Sep.23.23.58.16.1992.3342@athos.rutgers.edu> s907487@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Chang Onn Lai) writes:
>
> I'm doing a subject called sex, genderand socitey. in this subject i'm  need 
> to do a project called CHRISTIAN SEX. I'm just want somebodies up there to
> help and give me some opioions about a true Christian (who obeys Jesus commands)
> in christian sex. 

Um, is Christian sex any different than non-Christian sex?  

Ok, only joking, but seriously folks.  A good resource is a book by
Lewis Smedes, called _Sex for Christians_.  If you're writing a paper
or something it would be a good reference.




-- 
          *        Bob Meyering  *     Meyr@Calvin.Edu    *
            "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, 
             and it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
From: wiggins@marigold.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Sex
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:36:39 GMT
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

I think more and more Christians these days would accept the fact that sex
is one of the best things God ever designed.  But, I'm guessing that the
initiator of this Christian Sex dialogue wanted to know more about what
Christians thought was proper to do or not.  Now, there're many, many opinions
about exactly how to have sex.  When I posted those ref's before, they weren't
meant to be totally negative, but to serve more as guidelines to put limits on
how far people can go.  They can be positive.  We can be relatively free to
"express ourselves" with our spouses in things 'not covered by the Law', which
is what I think Mr. Noring [correctly] pointed out.

Interesting enough, though, there are still some limits.  In the New Testament
somewhere, I forget where, isn't there a statement to the effect that we
shouldn't have sex with a woman the same way as two gay dudes would (i.e., no
anal, possibly no oral intercourse)?  Otherwise, though, (inside of marriage)
we're pretty free to do what we want.  I bet we're all for that.
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God's Slaves? (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:15:55 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Oct.2.00.13.44.1992.1518@geneva.rutgers.edu>, anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell) writes:
>I'd rather be the Lord's servant and friend than his slave.  I think he thinks
>so too.

Paul says that we are slaves to RIGHTEOUSNESS not God and the non-believer is
a slave to SIN not Satan (Rom 6).  Basically, then, we are slaves to our nature,
be it from the Spirit or from sin.  We are the Father's servants and Jesus'
brothers/sisters, not their sl

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Responsibility of Leaders
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:06:33 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Sep.30.23.13.17.1992.8894@geneva.rutgers.edu> mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:

>I don't know if I can go for this 100%.  To a certain extent, any work
>of art (music, visual arts, etc.) must be judged without reference to 
>the details of the artists life.  

That is again a judgement - you are judging that it is the music that counts,
not the lifestyle of the artist. 

I should re-iterate my initial point - I am not saying which way the judgement
should go.  What I am saying is that one MUST make some sort of judgement.  It
is unavoidable.  In you're case, you choose to say that the lifestyle is not
important; other will think differently - you are all making a judgement.
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Defending the Faith through Fear (was Inerrancy)
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:37:49 GMT
Organization: FNAL

In article <Sep.27.21.12.27.1992.647@athos.rutgers.edu>
jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:

>You misunderstood.  I meant that, you do not seem to have considered
>the act of believing, in and of itself.  I.e., what causes me to
>believe, what must I believe, how do I know that I believe correctly,
>etc.
>
I posted a multipage document on pisteuw in John.  Wasn't that enough? If you
did not read that post (I know that I post too much), I will be glad to send
you a copy.

Rex

[Folks, let's move this discussion to email.  --clh]
From: david_s@hsr.no (David Andreas Sjoeen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A.N. Wilson's New Book.
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:40:33 GMT
Reply-To: david-s@ifi.hsr.no
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <Sep.30.01.49.26.1992.7538@geneva.rutgers.edu>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
> I've just read an article about A.N. Wilson's new book where he explains
> why he lost his faith.
> 
> One of his points is "unresovled contradictions" in the Gospels.
> The four he came up with were:
> 
> 1) Jesus called the Gentiles "pigs & dogs" and yet the Church
>    included Gentiles

Read Eph. 2,11-22
 
> 2) When Jesus was called "Good master" he said only "God is good,"
>    thereby apparently denying both his sinlessness and divinity
>    in one swoop.

On the contrary, Jesus several places says that He is God. Jesus   i s
good, because He is God.

> 3) Jesus chose blood as a symbol, which would be anaethema to Jews
>    at the time. Being a good Jew himself, he "wouldn't do such a thing."

Jesus did many things the Jews didn't like.
 
> 4) The Trial of Jesus happened on the passover. Wilson says that good
>    Jews would not interupt the rituals of an important holy day with a
>    trial for a mere Galilean trouble maker.

They did... There are forces which can make man do things he usually
doesn't do...

:)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: munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Spiritual Headship
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:40:29 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

Hi everybody!

I have been keeping up with this group for about the past six months
but hadn't had a real issue to bring up until now (although I sure
enjoy reading submissions by others!).  I am looking for information
(especially scriptural) either for or against the idea of spiritual
headship exercised by the male in a husband-wife relationship.
In addition, please try to define what spiritual headship really is,
since the term is not very descriptive.

Now, the reason why I'm asking.
My girlfriend has very strong opinions supporting this idea.  Unfortunately,
she doesn't have much scripture to back it up.  She just feels that way.
She comes from a charismatic background, if that explains anything
(through differing theology, perhaps--we come from very different Christian
backgrounds--I am a United Methodist officially--although titles don't mean
anything to me, you may be able to better understand where I sit).  
I don't know where I stand on the subject yet - I just don't know enough!
I look forward to your comments :-)

					In Christ,
					Scott Munns
From: carroll@reston.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 'my personal savior'
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:49:40 GMT

[From Louie Crew's posting, I think --clh]
>I'm not trying to state any of this as an argument, but as an ongoing 
>reflection.  Do others sense boundaries to how personal we ought to
>be with god?      What are some prayers you would find blasphemous or
>otherwise misdirected?

When I read your first post, it resonated with an issue I've thought a lot
about lately. I think the dogma (yes, dogma; did you think only Catholics
had dogma?) of Jesus as personal saviour is a latter-day Gnosticism which
would have been expunged from the Church back in the days when they were
kicking out heretics, and that its roots lie in Protestantism's repudiation
of the authority of tradition.

I think that Episcopalians like Louie and I are a lot more comfortable with
the idea that the Church might have an mediating role to play in the
relationship of the individual to God; that the Church somehow serves as
a channel of grace and reconciliation through the sacraments.
 
Protestants who have rejected this idea (possibly because the Eucharistic
liturgy doesn't appear in the Bible) give up the beauty, authenticity, and
order of the sacramental life in favor of chaos and charisma, which can
lead to intense spiritual experience but is also demonstrably prone to
abuse and exploitation.
 
Let me try a supplementary (not superseding) rephrasing of the question.
Does the Church (what we call the "Body of Christ") properly have a role
to play in the individual's relationship to God? If so, what is it?

My answer is "yes". I found the missing piece of my spiritual life when I
came to a church which took its sacraments seriously.

Jeff Carroll
carroll@reston.cray.com

(in the bookbag this week: _The_Gospel_According_to_Jesus_ by Stephen
Mitchell. Highly recommended. I'm only 25 pages in and already I think
it may be the best book I've read this year.)
From: saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Nicholas Patrick Popoff)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:23:12 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz

In article <Oct.3.02.19.10.1992.3494@geneva.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:
>On <28 Sep 1992 21:56> Friend of Entropy said to All :
>
>Well yes, you might find them offensive, but have you ever considered the 
>possibility that some people might find some of your opinions offensive? If 
>you want people to justify those opinions, what standards will you be using? 
>And do you think your standards will be universally acceptable, or that they 
>ought to be?
	
	
	What standards?  My own, of course!  Thats all ANY of us have,
whether it is what our parents taught us, or how we individually interpreted
religious literature (Koran, Bible) it still comes down to our own 
judgements.
	If you disagree with this, saying that "No, God tells us what is
right, and that isnt relative.", well then, try to find a consensus
even on this group about exactly what is offensive, and wrong and right, 
ect.  I mean, how many different religious organizations do you have
just based on the teachings of Christ?  Even within these organizations,
you have people who disagree tremendously.  Abortion is one such issue,
possibly the most volitile, with both sides sure that they have moral
support from God.  
	So how is my personal believes somehow less stable then those
of someone who read the bible and follows every word?  (Ok, maybee not
every word, i mean some of it isnt strictly relevent in todays society,
or could have been a mistranslation.... 8^)..)                  

	-nick
From: ljh655@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (ljh655)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-Religious practice
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:14:49 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

Well, it's not easy to answer briefly..., but I believe that we do all
come across to people of different beliefs.  Centuries ago the
Christians tried to change other people's minds by force (some
religions still do...), and Jack in his article surely refers not only
to this. So what does he refer to? What do we do today to change other
people and to show them how much does our Father love us ? Do we do
anything at all ? Sometimes we try, but if we are genuine in our
Christianity,we don't have any other reason than to show and express
the love that we are receiving from God ! Many people might feel
offended when we talk to them about Jesus, and when we try to talk
them into studying Bible, etc.  But Jack - we do this because we are
getting so much from our Father every day, and we are so full of His
love that we just can't help forwarding it to the others. And what is
God -He is a person in the first place, and our relationship with Him
is (or should be if it isn't) first of all p e r s o n a l with all
what belongs to it - love, passion, thankfullness, curiosity,
sometimes even misunderstandings, etc. I am happy that you posted this
contribution, and if you feel somebody is trying to show you what
Christianity is all about, don't worry - it happens because that
person has the gift from God to forward His love to you ...  and you
perhaps shouldn't be offended when somebody loves you,should you ?  I
would say read the first letter of St John, especially 1 John 1,3-4,
and see for yourself why do we do it, but if you don't like quoting
the Bible, read a little book "Food for the soul" from M.Gandhi, who
didn't express any inclination to Christianity, and still did show so
much of it all.  In God's love, Lubosh