HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ichoi@husc10.harvard.edu (Isaac Choi)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:36:32 GMT
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA

First of all, the universe must have had a beginning whether or not God
created it. Because of generally ever increasing entropy, or disorder, in
the universe, from the molecular level up, the universe will (without any
outside influence) eventually wind down to a state where the all available
useful energy has been exhausted (not destroyed but transformed into 
virtually useless low level heat.) So since there's plenty of useful energy
left in the universe, the universe must have had a beginning, for if it had
been existing for an eternity, we'd be out of energy (useful energy) by now.

So, the universe must have began at a previous point in time, before which 
it did not exist. Since matter cannot be created or destroyed by any
naturalistic processes*, the only way matter can be created is through some
force or being who is not subject to the laws of this universe, or who can
transcend the limitations of physical processes. So though this doesn't 
prove that our God of the Bible is the one responsible, it does pretty much
necessitate an all powerful god of some sort. Since I am a Christian and 
believe in Genesis, I believe that our God is the Creator God, who created
the universe out of nothing.

* Note: Matter CAN be created. When one puts a high energy photon in space, 
it sometimes gets transformed into two particles, a particle of matter, let's
say a proton, and its anti-particle (let's say an anti-proton). If matter
and antimatter touch each other, they are annihilated and become energy once
again. But this just expands conservation of mass into conservation of 
mass-energy. In other words energy and matter are essentially two different
forms of the same thing. And energy/matter cannot be created from nothing.
So the argument still stands.

Sorry for all the technical jargon, but that's what I think.

Isaac Choi
ichoi@husc8.harvard.edu
From: jd4p+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Ethan DeGraaf)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Sex
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:01:53 GMT

An excellant book that I just finished reading on the topic of the
"sexualizing" of the American Culture is called _Romanced to Death_ by
Paul deParrie and published by Wolgemuth and Hyatt (which is/has been
taked over by Word). It confronts many of the perversions of the concept
of love. It also confronts some of the ideas of some of the recent
Christian books on sex, and trys to present a biblical response.
From: gross@monarch.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question for fundamentalists
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:07:52 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <Sep.16.00.12.48.1992.18481@athos.rutgers.edu> whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>
>Sounds good to me.  If so--please keep it all in the club and Let My
>Government Go.  However. . .  Since religious issues--especially
>Christian ones--seem to be rather thuroughly tangled in government and
>government policy, those who do *not* share your religion are forced
>to operate as if they did, and your business becomes my business
>regardless of my wishes.

Hal, let me see if I have this correct -- Christians should keep their
nose out of government while everyone else gets to stick theirs in!!?

Smile, I'm partly being sarcastic, and I apologize.  Each of us, as
Americans, as the right and privilege of participating in this
government and its processes, regardless of our religious views, or lack
thereof.  If I don't like the way some piece of legislation is going, I
can stick my nose in -- just as you can.  That is what the Constitution
safeguards.

Using your logic, I think hedonism is far too rampant and intwined in
our government.  Therefore, all hedonists should keep their noses out of
the government. ;-)

Point is, I have certain "inalienable rights" granted by the Creator
(take note of this explicit language in our Constitution and the Declaration
of Independence).  My rights are not granted by the State, nor are yours
for that matter, else the State would have the sole position of
determining what those rights are, and could easily revoke those rights
when it suited the governing bodies.  In short, it is our collective
Christian noses sticking into the King's business that brought about the
rights and the government you and I enjoy.  Personally, I think
Christians need to keep themselves involved in government -- it is our
business.

En Agape tou Iesous,

Gene Gross
<><
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christians and Economics
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:02:49 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>Michael Cree writes:
>>>dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>>>>Is there anybody relating their Christianity to the profession of Economics?
>>>>I find that there are some people who refuse to accept the idea that I can
>>>>be an economist and a Christian at the same time. I would like to see
>>>>writings on this topic.
>>
Fritz Shumacher (beloved of hippies) was some kind of a Christian. He
wrote a very famous book called "Small is Beautiful" which I think
he subtitled "Economics as if people mattered". He included a chapter
called "Buddhist Economics", but as he says, he could have chosen any
anti-materialist creed and it would have been substantially the same. 

Its certainly worth reading, especially for its refreshing eccentricity. 
He's dead now: he had a very credible career as a professional economist.

Also, though perhaps this has been mentioned, in many countries the
Catholics Bishops have Commissions for Justice and Peace that put
out statemetents relating to Economics. Just last week our Australian
Bishops had a press conference saying that an oppositions party's policy
of putting a tax on basic food was wrong. I don't know what's available
in the US.

-ricko
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Dating
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:53:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON


        At the very start of any discussion of dating, we should
recognize that the Bible really doesn't say anything about dating.
In O.T. times, it would seem that arranged marriages were the 
norm.  Of course, we must also recognize that regardless of the 
relative merits or demerits :) of arranged marriage, it is really
not an option for the majority of Christians today (at least the
ones in a North American/European culture).

        For the Christian today, I believe that the Biblical
command to honour/obey our parents would require their approval
(approval that we are ready to date, and approval of the person we
are dating).

        2 Corinthians 6:14 etal, requires that a Christian only
marry a believer.  I would extend this injunction to include dating.
The person who dates an unbeliever runs a much greater chance of
marrying an unbeliever, marrying someone who has made a false
profession of faith, getting dragged down, etc.

        I suppose that one of the best places for a Christian
to meet other Christians, is in meetings of a local church 
(perhaps through a College and Careers group).  This will allow
a person to meet people in a non-threatening atmosphere, and let
them see other people for who they are (people who are dating are
usually on their absolute best behaviour, and may present a
false image).

        For myself, I cannot justify casual dating.  I would
certainly like the female companionship, but if I am going to
esteem others above myself, I can't jump from person to person
to person.  Usually, in a date, one person is a bit more serious
that the other person, and I just can't justify in my own mind
breaking other people's hearts on a regular basis, or setting
myself up to have my heart broken.  By getting to know a person
in a local church (or C&C group), you will learn a lot about a
person and his/her personality, tastes, interests, etc.

        I'd like to write more, but I have to go practice my
Hebrew vowels.

Shawn Abigail
abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
From: cnews@umr.edu (UMR Usenet News Post)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Psalm 58
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:34:55 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <Oct.4.21.35.12.1992.5796@geneva.rutgers.edu> kmm@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Megill) writes:
>Here are 3 verses from the Psalm:
>     8:	Let them [the wicked] be as a snail which melts away as
>	  it goes along,
>	Like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.
>     9:	Before your pots can feel the fire of thorns,
>	He will sweep them away with a whirlwind, the green 
>	  and the burning alike.
>    10:	The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
>	He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
>			(Psalm 58:8-10, NASB)
> . . . 
>but I don't even understand the picture.
>	a) Whose pots?  The wicked's?  The righteous'?  God's?
>	b) Why would pots be in the fire?  For pottery? Destruction?
>		Cooking?
>	c) He will sweep "them" away -- the thorns?  (Not
>	  	the pots, right?)

Since the "He" in verse 9 is capitalized (also in NKJV and Amplified)
I assume this refers to God.  "Your pots" must therefore be either the
wicked's or the righteous'.

In the NIV, verse 9 reads, "Before your pots can feel the heat of the
thorns--whether they be green or dry--the wicked will be swept away."

Since the wicked are swept away, I assume "your pots" refers to the pots
of the righteous.  The wicked seem to be compared with thorns and both
are swept away.  This reminds me of the NT passage where the wicked are
compared to the chaff which is burned with "fire unquenchable."
(See Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17)

However, regardless of our interpretation of the nit-picky details of
the example, the Psalm as a whole seems to display the sovereignty of God.

Psalm 58:11 "And men will say, 'Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
Surely there is a God who judges the earth!" (NASB)

scotth@cs.umr.edu
From: bbs.india@goonsquad.spies.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Orthodox Saints?
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:12:50 GMT
Organization: Spies in the wire, information co-op -- (408) 867-7400

> > How did/do the Orthodox Churches go about canonizing saints?  While I'm pre
> > sure that the RCC and the Orthodox share some saints from the early days of
> > Christianity, I've never heard about any specifically Orthodox saints.  I w
> > wondering in particular whether anyone had been canonized recently, and if 
> > for what reason.

St. Herman of Alaska.  I learned of him when I visited
the Russian Orthodox monastery in Jordanville, NY.

India J. Carter
From: Mark.Conti@eastnews.east.sun.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Cell Group Churches
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:32:14 GMT
Reply-To: markc@onondaga.east.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 2495@athos.rutgers.edu, bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
>Our church (Xenos Christian Fellowship in Columbus Ohio USA and
>elsewhere) has been organized around small, lay-led home groups for
>about two decades now.  In contrast to the common situation of a more
>traditional church changing its structural gears and downsizing, ours
>started with a few men living together in a house near the Ohio State
>University campus, inviting friends over for Bible studies.  There was
>a strong antipathy towards the "institutional" church and all its
>structures, and we've always tought that the wine is more important
>than the wineskins.  At all levels, the group is more focused on Bible
>study and personal interaction than on any liturgical standards or any
>ecclesiastical structure.
>
><stuff deleted>

 Our Church has had Home groups as it center now for almost ten years.
I just went to a seminar last week that was given by Dale Galloway. He pastors
New Hope Church in Portland. Their Church has 500 Home groups and they have
more people in Home Groups than in their Church.
 This is a great example of how the Home Groups work well for evangelism. Some
of these people might never walk into a Church, but feel comfortable coming to
someones home. My wife and I have led Home Group for about three years now.
We have seen the Lord do some awesome things in peoples lives as we come 
together as a body of Believers in an intimate, family setting. 


---
Mark Conti
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Rapture Question (also Challenge to Dispensationalists)
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:15:08 GMT
Organization: FNAL

In article <Oct.2.00.13.12.1992.1508@geneva.rutgers.edu>
topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>[Forgive me if this question was answered in the original message.  I
>missed it at my site.]
>
>baresson@cbnewsi.att.com writes:
>
>>3. The doctrine of imminency demands a pre-tribulation
>>rapture. We believe that the Lord can return at any time. 
>
>Could you please define this doctrine of imminency from the Scriptures?  How
>is it that the folks who hold to this "imminency" doctrine are many of the
>same folks who have been telling us all the signs point to the fact that
>we're the "terminal generation?"  If Christ's return is "imminent", how can
>there be signs prior to the rapture?
>
>--
>Tom Albrecht
>
simple quite actually.  Having rug rats of my own, I personally came to
experience the illustration of the pregnant woman used to illustrate this very
point in Scripture.  With our 1st child, my wife went 6 weeks too early down to
her mom's (had all the kids down there because it was 1/3rd the cost) because
she started false labor.  She was pregnant, that was real hard to deny, even
for a blind man.  But as time drew on it became more evident that the time for
"down loading" was near at hand.  Even after she went into labor, it was still
many hours before she actually went into transition.  
soooooo, that's how we marry these two things.  Though the signs have no
primary application to the Church because none were given to the Church (except
general ones such as "being pregnant").  However, in Christ's statement about
paying attention to the fig tree, in regards to its bearing fruit, so the
Church can use secondary/tertiary applications in regards to the signs given to
the Jewish nation.
does that make it any clearer?
Rex
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sandy Patti Divorce??
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:15:47 GMT
Organization: FNAL

>>[Do we really buy music based on judgements of the personal character
>>of the author?  I can understand that there are people who personal
>>character makes one recoil from their works.  This happens to me in
>>some cases.  But when there's doubt, it would seem to me that we could
>>make our decision based on the quality and message of their works
>>itself, without feeling forced to judge them personally.  --clh]
>
certainly there is room in my heart for my fellow believer who sins.  But the
sins of the leadership causes a greater effect.  "To whom much is given, much
is required" has significant application here.  Just as with the disgrace of
the Bakers and Swaggert's, both having lost their reputation, so I feel it will
happen to Sandy.  Of course the situation is a little different, yet there is
still this thing of leaders begin more strictly judged.  I have no idea where
the blame lies, and really its none of my buisness.  She became a public
figure, and in doing so, made it well known that she was a born again
Christian.  This sets her, and others like her, up on a pedestal.  Those of us
who are of a leadership capacity within our own churches, have the same burden
placed on us.  We are called to a more holy life style.  There have been times
that my wife and I could easily have slipped into the mentality of allowing
divorce to be an option.  But our convictions of Xian ethics would not allow
it.  If I slip or if you slip, let us not fool ourselves, for there are
effects.  In my case I know of several young people, for what ever reason, put
me on a pedestal.  Do I deserve it. No, of course not because I am a wilful
sinner just like the next man.  But I feel God calls us to account for the
things we do.  If I did some foolish sin and it became public, it would cause a
real and significant effect on the lives of these young people.  There are no
real heros today, thereofre we much each be careful not to betray the trust
that is given us.  It can be a pay me now or pay me later proposition.  Really,
I'd rather pay now.  
Anyway, Sandy has at least tarnished her reputation.  She has caused a negative
effect for the cause of the witness of His reality.  But we are not to judge. 
Yet that being said, it does not do away with the thesis of responcibility
necessitates accountablity, whether it is before God or man.

because He first love us,
Rex
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Are Most Religious Followers So Sensitive?
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:40:47 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Sep.30.01.29.12.1992.7211@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
] >[Jack Wong commenting on how Christians are rude when asked if God exists]
] 
] While I do not wish to speak for others, I think I may be able to
] explain some of the discomfort Christians have with "Does God exist"
] questions.  Try the following analogy:  Suppose you and your wife
] were sitting in your living room, when your neighbour dropped in.
] You invite him in for some coffee, and say something like ".. this
] is my wife".  Now, you neighbour, instead of walking over to her and
] shaking her hand, says "What wife?".  You point to her, and say
] "Over there".  The response comes "There nobody there Jack.  Are you
] feeling all right?"

Okay... Now put yourself in the other set of shoes....

You walk in and are introduced to a wife that is--so far as you can
see, simply not there.

You neighbor *insists* that his 'wife' is sitting there, but you can
clearly see that she isn't.

What inferences do you draw about your neighbor?

If you have had other exchanges that lead you to think that he is
sincere and honest, what does that make you think of his claim?

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 'my personal savior'
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:43:13 GMT

Louie Crew writes about the phrase "my personal savior":

>It often seems quite contrary to the savior of the New Testament, who came to
>save the whole world, not just me and those most like me.  "Personal savior"
>seems to encourage spiritual narcissism and selfishness in many who 
>proclaim it most avidly.

I think this is overly simplistic.  First of all, one needs the whole
phrase:  it's "accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior."  The focus here
is on the establishment of a relationship (a "personal" relationship,
remember) with Jesus.  The models for this in scripture are in fact
extremely strong:  think Peter and Thomas, for starters, or "rise and follow
me", or the woman taken in adultery.  The Jesus who calls to the convert
saying "come" is Jesus the personal savior.

I too, however, find this phrase tossed at me almost as a sort of litmus
test; the saved answer yes, the damned say no or (in the case of I and
Louie) say something obfuscatory.  It has become the Filoque of
protestantism, a divisive scrap of theology standing in for every other sort
of difference in practice or belief.  It certainly seems to mark a division
between sacramental churches and others that are not; in the evangelical
side of Anglicanism, for instance, I haven't heard the phrase nearly as
much.  "Accepting" stands against baptism as the primary act.  One wonders
if there are sects with an informal rite of conversion in which the convert
speaks the ritual phrase and is thus duly christian.

But over in Anglicanism the counter-reaction is perhaps even worse.  The
Personal Savior is divisive and seems (as Louie and I seem to agree) to
tempt one into a life in Christ which is dependent and, I would observe,
overly impressed with argumentation.  (After all, isn't "accept Jesus" the
natural conclusion to "accept my argument"?)  What has happened among
anglicans is instead that the person of Jesus, the Person of God, gets
reduced to nothing at all.  Statues are raised in the memory of a God, of a
Savior, who does not offer salvation to individuals; God is eventually
reduced to an endorsement for charities.
-- 
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: Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:50:17 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Nick,

I don't claim to be an expert on biblical stuff.  Nor do I claim to be an
expert in anything theological.  I do, however, believe that you are
reading things into the bible that you wish to be there.

All the quotes you gave are from the Old Testament, where the law was
still supreme.  It says a lot to people today about what the law will
bring.  Strife and worry, pain and suffering, etc...  I wonder if you have
read any of these same things into Jesus' teachings, and the words of the
apostles.  I venture to guess that you have not.

It sounds to me that you are not currently a christian.  Is that right? 
do you suppose it is fair of you to read the bible on the human level,
when it was created and written for those on a spiritual level?  The
things in the bible are good instruction to a point, but then it ends.  In
the Old Testament, God had to be the way you percieve him so that when his
son came and gave himself as a sacrifice for the sins of this race, people
would recognize a better way of doing things.

Almost all of the errors and all of the complaints come from the Old
Testament.  Why do you suppose that is?  Because, if all of the
non-christians took a little bit of time to read the new Testament and
understand its message, they wouldn't have a thing in the world to
complain about.

You must read the bible for what it is!!  A history of mankind from the
beginning.  Man was created.  Man rebelled against God.  Man was separated
from God for eternity.  Control of the earth was given to Satan.  The law
was given.  The law was inadequate.  God sent his son to atone for man's
sins, and offer a doorway to salvation.  Jesus died, was buried, and arose
on the third day to sit at the right hand of God the Father.

You can't look at this book as anything but what it is.  To do so would be
folly.  The words of the book and the technical writing of the book and
the seemingly apparent contradictions are not, repeat NOT, the most
important thing it has to offer.  It offers the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. 
It tells of a way to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Stop looking for things
to be wrong with the bible.  you will find them until the day you die. 
Look instead for the message of hope and peace, tranquility and joy,
redemption and salvation.  This is the reason the book was written.  Not
as entertainment, not as a literary masterpiece, not as a rule-book.  It
was written to chronicle the events leading up to and after the death of
the Lord Jesus Christ.


God Bless,
Steve.Gross
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80