HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kemery@nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re:Christian "Scout" programs
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:30:28 GMT

Someone was asking about christian scouting programs.

The Assemblies of God have what we call "Royal Rangers"
It is based in part on boy scouts but with a christian
emphasis.  The boys earn awards,  go on camp-outs,  etc.

The program starts at age 5 and go through 18.  There is also
a derivitave call "Fronteirsman Camping Fellowship"  which
is for boys 14 and over all the way up to adult men.  I guess
this is sort of like being an eagle scout.

Each church is responsible for it's own group,  but the material
is from the National Headquarters.  Usually the Men's Ministries
program is responsible in part fro Royal Rangers,  just as
the Women's Ministries is responsible for Missionettes.  That's
the girls program.

Hope that helps.

Kendal

kemery@dante.nmsu.edu
From: stngiam@athena.mit.edu (Shih-Tung Ngiam)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Clinton & Gore
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:14:20 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


 
  As the "Christian Politics" thread develops, there is a question I'd
like to ask.  The media reports that Governor Clinton is Baptist.  I'm
wondering whether he is Southern Baptist.

  If indeed he is a member of a Southern Baptist church, many of the
policies he espouses are contrary to the position of the leadership of
the Southern Baptist Convention.  And if that is the case, how has the
SBC reacted?  

  How about Sen Gore?

  Going back in time, President Carter described himself as a born-again
Christian, if my memory serves me right.  His policies would not have
been approved of by today's Fundamentalist Christians.

Shih Tung
Best l'il Tech School
in Cambridge
From: jd4p+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Ethan DeGraaf)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Defending the Faith through Fear (was Inerrancy)
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:23:11 GMT

>"the Bible does not reflect perfectly the teachings of God, one can
therefore >NOT follow a given doctorine set forth in the Bible and not
apostasize, >provided that doctorine can be shown to be out-of-line with
God's >teachings, as understood by that person."

By saying this, we get rid of any absolute standard, and we make "God's
teachings" individualistic and relative (ie. "as understood by that
person"). Then there is no longer an absolute standard outside of
ourselves by which we can make a claim about ANYTHING. A doctrine CAN'T
be shown as "out-of-line with God's teachings" if there is no longer an
absolute, innerrant standard outside of ourselves (ie. Scripture) by
which we say something is "out-of-line." If scripture is no longer the
standard, then one can't make any authoritative claims about what is
right or wrong because there is no longer any standard on which to base
those claims.
-----------------
John DeGraaf
From: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:26:35 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Aug.30.01.45.26.1992.11864@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:
>In article <Aug.28.01.44.01.1992.25859@athos.rutgers.edu> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>>...  Look at the Pilgrims
>>and Puritans how they escaped governmental religious persecution.
>
>They escaped being persecuted themselves, not to end persecution.
>They just wanted to cease being persecutees and become persecutors.
>When will the myth that these people stood for individual liberty and
>freedom of religion die? Recall that Roger Williams was run out of
>the Massachusetts colony. Alleged witches were burned in Salem.
>Quakers were hanged on Boston common...
>
>Credit deists and freethinkers like Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin
>for the tradition of religious freedom that we have. Some Christians,
>mostly those considered unorthodox by the powerful churches at the
>time had enough sense to realize the need for religious freedom, but
>certainly not the Pilgrims and Puritans.
>
>Bill Mayne
>

The moderator comments:

>[And some folks like Roger Williams, of course.  --clh]

The very same Roger Williams who I mentioned being run out of
Massachusetts because the authorities there, who I said migrated
so they could become persecutors rather than persecutees didn't
like his preaching. The above was a simplification mainly to
make the point that Puritans and Pilgrims weren't such great
freedom loving people as myth would have them. Someone else
has also noted the witches executed in Salem were hanged, not
burned.  This was a minor point and I was careless on it. I knew
better. But it hardly exonerates the good Christian residents
of Salem. I also omitted that the Quaker colony of Pennsylvania
was an early shining examle of religious freedom, and William
Penn, like the Quakers hanged in Boston, was a Christian.
As my original closing had it, some Christians who came to America
looking for religious freedom for themselves also wanted others
to have it. Pilgrims and Puritans, however, did not. That they
tolerated people who weren't very religious hardly exonerates
them. The worst persecutions have always been against those
with strongly held, though dissenting views - again like Roger
Williams and Quakers, as well as militant freethinkers.

Bill Mayne
From: seanna@x400gate.bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: hares & badgers (was Re: Test of inerrancy: agreement)
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:07:38 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <Aug.26.02.06.17.1992.7644@athos.rutgers.edu> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Basically, both the 'Rock Badger' and 'Hare' have jaws that are in constant
>motion, and appear to chew the cud.  Thus, the prohibition against eating
>them is correct, since they do not really chew the cud, but only have their
>mouths in motion.
>
In the New American Standard Bible, I believe a "rock badger" is identified
as a "coney", somewhat like a hare.  Anyway, rabbits and hares don't chew
a proper ruminant cud, but they do chew their 'pellets' (feces), apparently
in order to recover vitamins or digestive enzymes or something.  (I'm not
sure what this proves either way, but then again, I'm not an inerrantist.)

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

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument
From: pearsodc@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (D)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Clinton & Gore
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:40:59 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Shih-Tung Ngiam writes
> 
>  
>   As the "Christian Politics" thread develops, there is a question I'd
> like to ask.  The media reports that Governor Clinton is Baptist.  I'm
> wondering whether he is Southern Baptist.

From my understanding, Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist.  (I don't see  
why he wouldn't be...not many other Baptist churches exist in Arkansas.)
And you're right...he and the party he represents run roughshod against  
the SBC.  I do not know if the convention has reacted.

>   How about Sen Gore?

No idea.

clueless chuck
PearsoDC@NeXTWork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
From: bdonison@sol.uvic.ca (Only AMIGA!)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: C.R.I.
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:04:36 GMT
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

Does anyone have C.R.I.'s Canadian mailing address?
btw. CRI stands for: the Christian Research Institute, they produce the
radio show, the Bible Answer Man, I highly recommend giving them a listen!

Brad
From: anachem@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (mark gilstrap)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: LXX      the SEPTUAGINT (in english)
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:56:53 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Aug.23.19.23.30.1992.20919@athos.rutgers.edu> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham) writes:
>>	_The_Septuagint_With_Apocrypha:_Greek_and_English_
>>The translation is a bit archaic in style -- it is an 1851 translation,
>
>everyone I've asked have advised me to be somewhat leery of this particular
>version.  
>	if....let the rest of us know

	Bar none!!! the best translation is the work done at Holy
	Transfiguration Monastery (Boston vicinity - by Greek
	Orthodox monastics who were extremely careful) and available
	from Light and Life in Minnesota, or any number of other
	religious bookservices. I can recommend two others which
	are less well known, but give me good service:

	Holy Trinity Monastery (Russian Orthodox)
	P.O.Box 34
	Jordanville New York

	and 

	St John of Kronstadt Press
	Rt 1 Box 171
	Liberty Tenn 37095
	voice or FAX (hit 33)  615-536-5239

	The current second edition corrects the very few typos from the
	first edition. The printing is two color (red accents) on very
	high quality paper. This book will last for generations. It is
	made to be sturdy enough to stand up to all the Psalter reading
	that takes place in Orthodox churches (esp monasteries). It is
	surprizingly inexpensive considering the quality (about $20)

	The psalms are sequentially ordered, but also structured into
	larger units of several sequential psalms - called a stasis -
	and what is called a Kathisma (three stases). This allows for
	easier access to the appointed Kathisma for Vespers and the two
	for Matins, etc..  There are rubrics in the rear defining which
	Kathisma are appointed for each day during each of the Church's
	seasons. 

	In addition the Song of Moses and the Song of the Three Children
	(in the fire) are beautifully translated and divided by verse 
	into the proper meter for authentic Byzantine chanting in the
	English language (as are all the psalms - although this is not
	at first obvious until you start reading them aloud). The second
	edition also includes an additional song, but I don't recall
	what it is. 

	This is an excellent translation. It is both near perfect in 
	accuracy to the Greek Septuagint and not at all difficult as
	English - in fact the English is beautiful to tears. 

	Fr Mark
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re. money and mouths
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:52:58 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Sep.1.22.40.16.1992.23375@athos.rutgers.edu> rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) writes:
>Let's look at some factoids:
>
>General charitable giving in the U.S. -  about 2 to 3% of gross

I've heard statistics that say Christians only give about 2%.

>Percentage of the Christians  who Tithe (10%*)  about 18%

Generallly, about 20% (which is near 18%) of the church does
80% of the work, this would apply to money and time.

Note: this 20% may seem to contradict the above 2% number, but the
2% would be 2% of all income of Christians and the 20% would apply
to individuals.  So if the 20% that gave had lower incomes, then
the numbers could line-up.  Generally, ones with lower incomes give
more percentage wise than those with higher incomes.

>* Tithe - some folks take 10% of the gross, some the net

If one claims to give a tithe, then it should be a tithe of gross
(i.e., the first fruits), for if you tithe on net, do you only deduct
taxes or do you deduct insurance, food, retirement, etc. - where does
one stop?

>...
>Bobby - akgua!rjb
>
>[Note that in NT times, there were several different obligations making
>up the tithe.  I saw an estimate that their typical net impact with
>around 30%.  --clh]

I've never heard it applied to NT, but the OT (Jewish) tithe consisted of
two 10% tithes a year and one 10% tithe every third year, which results
in a 23.333% average.  The every third year tithe was for the poor, I
believe.  [I heard this on Larry Burkett's radio show.]

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:06:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

>the Massachusetts colony. Alleged witches were burned in Salem.

By the way Bill...alleged witches were never burned in Salem.  All
were either hanged or imprisoned.

Pilgrims and Puritans did escape religious persecution, and I stick to
that tenant.  I never said they didn't have their own standards which
they lived by...but that didn't include forcing others into their
religious beliefs.  There were several nonreligious men who sailed
to Plymouth on later ships and lived among the Pilgrims and remained
non-religious.  I'm not as familiar with the Puritans.
From: will@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (William Fitzgerald)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:21:32 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences


 (bulloj@rpi.edu) wrote:
: This is a general question about politics in the United States and
: Christians. ...
:  My question is, why is it that more "Evangelical 
: Christians" tend to be very right-wing Republicans? I understand the
: position on the abortion issue, but is that really the only reason
: to support Republicans?
: 

A good book to read on this subject is Ron Sider's _Rich Christians
in an Age of Hunger_, which I believe is now in its 3rd edition.
Sider discusses both the right-wing/Evangelical connection and 
alternatives.  He's also been instrumental in creating alternative
political organizations, including Evangelicals for Social Action, and
JustLife (which has focussed on pro-life, anti-nuclear and 
pro-justice issues).


I've recently read a good summarization of Sider's politics and
theology: a PhD. thesis by Jeff Jones entitled something like
_Ron Sider and the Radical Evangelicals_; it is available as a UMI
reprint.  If anyone is interested in more details of Jones's work
(like the correct title!), please email me.
From: phantom@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Contribution to music, art and architecture
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:14:28 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

I am studying history of music these days.  I occured to me that
Christianity has contributed to, or motivated, a big portion of western
music.  For example, if you leave religion out, the music of Bach will not
be the same for he wrote most of his music for the glory of God.   Mozart's
Requium also was written for Catholic Mass.  And so on and on.

It is not necessary to mention the contribution of cathedral to the
development of architecture.

My question is, is it safe to say that Catholic has contributed to all
these forms of art whereas protestants did not do much?

I belong to neither.  I am just checking if my newly formulated hypothesis
is valid.

Thank you.

James Choi


[Protestants certainly didn't contribute much before the 16th Cent,
for obvious reasons.  After that, there is fine church music from both
Catholic and Protestant sources.  You do realize that Bach was
Lutheran, I hope.  My collection is heavy on English church music, and
of course whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or a tertium quid is
a matter of debate.  But I until the Oxford Movement I would classify
them as Protestant, particularly during the earlier periods when there
was an underground Catholic church with its own composers (e.g. Byrd).
Thus I'd classify Handel as Protestant.  There's some tendency for the
type of works to be different, since the Mass isn't a Protestant
thing.  However Protestant composers such as Bach did still set the
Mass now and then.  But Protestants tended to do cantatas, motets,
anthems, passions, and oratorio.  Most of the classical Protestant
works I know come from Lutherans and Anglicans.  I guess that isn't
surprising.  If you list the countries with a tradition of high
musical culture and the institutions necessary to support it, Germany
and England are the primary ones that were Protestant, though there is
a respectable contribution from Scandanavia.  The Reformed tradition
wasn't in any of the places with a long tradition of musical culture.
(While it was influential in France, culture there remained under
Catholic control.  Switzerland and Scotland were never known as
centers of musical culture.)  It also had a bias against elaborate
musical works.  So Reformed Christianity was known mostly for its
psalms.  There's been a certain amount of American religious music,
though it tends not to be the well-known major works like big requiem
masses.  I like Billings, a colonial composer who did a setting of the
Song of Solomon that requires a certain amount of courage to do in
church.  Ives is known for both songs and choral music.  I'd say that
after the Reformation music was fairly well balanced between the
Catholic tradition with centers in France and Italy and the Protestant
tradition with centers in Germany and England.  --clh]
From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Please Prove it to me!
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:45:26 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick) writes:
>> ... How do I and you know th
>> it's not all made up by some lunatic way back when.

>God tells us plainly in Rom. 1 why people have problems with the
>Christian faith: they are rebels against his law order. The problems
>they have with the faith are not intellectual; they are ethical. The
>sort of proof the unconverted seek will never be sufficient to convince
>their minds apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit. All
>unconverted men know instinctively that God exists, that he is
***************************************************
>powerful, that they have violated his law, and that they deserve
>punishment. Because of their sin, however, they suppress this truth that
             ********************************************************
>cries out within them at every opportunity. They must recognize that
>any life or faith apart from God is not merely wrong, but rebellious
>and self-frustrating. It is only on the basis of the Christian faith
>that human life is intelligible.

WHAT???? You're not serious? This is monstrous. You are saying
that everyone who was unfortunate enough to be born in a place where
the Gospel had'nt been taught, or in a time when it had not reached
them somehow knows the content of the gospel and is judged by God for
"rejecting" it!

How do we know anything about God "instinctively? About all I know
instinctively is not to put my hand in the fire because it burns.

Do you also agree with the Inquisition that torturing a person's body
to save their soul (and so "winning" souls for God by killing off those
who disagree with you) is worthwhile?

I think you have the wrong god.

julian
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: LXX      the SEPTUAGINT (in english)
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:23:31 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham) writes:
>My copy of the Septuagint is
>	_The_Septuagint_With_Apocrypha:_Greek_and_English_
>	Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, translator  [...]
>The translation is a bit archaic in style -- it is an 1851 translation,

I, too, have been looking for an English translation of the LXX.  However,
everyone I've asked have advised me to be somewhat leery of this particular
version.  It's not so much that the translation is almost a century and a
half old as the fact that the Greek text on which it is based is even older
(and --apparently-- notoriously buggy).

...on the other hand none of these people were able to recommend a suitable
translation.  So, if anyone comes up with any gems, please be sure to let
the rest of us know.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --         Bush/Gorbachev: One Down and One to Go
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:44:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

I agree with clh that this should be moderated, and I won't feel
bad (for once) if clh censors this reply.  I will try to be very
short in reply.  I believe many Christian are against big
government (actually, any government) because government tends
mostly to take away Christian liberties.  Look at the Pilgrims
and Puritans how they escaped governmental religious persecution.
Look at our society and how it is slowly, no...quickly turning
away from the Judeo/Christian values more toward secular humanism.
Many Christians view this societal change as being supported by
the more liberal and Democratic party.  Walter Mondale's father
signed the Humanist Manifesto.  Democratic court justices ruled
in favor of abortion with Roe -vs- Wade.  The ACLU is supported
almost exclusively by Democrats.  Our values are going 
down the toilet.  This isn't to say that Republicans are much better.
Greed was prevalent in the 80's.  I think many view the Republicans
as the lesser of two evils.  I do not believe government has the
responsibility of being a charitable institution.  Years ago it
wasn't.  Churches and other groups provided for the needy.  If
churches fulfilled their obligation to take care of the "widows and
poor" in the church, many problems would be solved.  But our
society is now so full of non-church people that the problems
would still be around.  The Democrats want my money for social
programs I don't agree with (like the NEA).  The Republicans
will let me keep a little more of my money so I can freely give
it to those I choose (which I do).  I view the second approach
more favorably.
The rule of thumb for all Christians should be to strive for the
same compassion that Jesus showed.  Compassion, however, can't
be legislated.
Mark
From: hp-col!smithw@kd4nc.ampr.org (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:28:37 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
> Those who have not heard the word, cannot believe.  Therefore they
> shall perish.  This is why missionary work is so crucial.  This is
> why Jesus gave the great commission.  It may seem unfair to you, but
> who am I, a mere man, to question God's eternal plan or righteousness or
> justice.  Salvation is ONLY possible through faith..

It is this sort of thinking that makes me real nervous, and why
I'm very skeptical of conservative Christianity.  If a missionary
goes and teaches someone the principles that Jesus taught, but
doesn't actually impose "Christianity" as a religion on him, do
you feel he has done anything?  If a person lives by those principles,
but never even hears of the religion "Christianity" or the name
Jesus, is God going to cast him away?  Or, does he, by his actions,
show that he knew Christ in his heart without knowing the Name?

When someone poses questions like the originator of this thread
did, he isn't neccessarily questioning "God's eternal plan or
righteousness", just some people's narrow, letter-of-the-law
approach to it.  

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com