HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djdaneh@pbhyc.pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: APOLOGY
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:46:32 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell

It has been called to my attention that there are Catholics reading this 
newsgroup.

(Well, yes, I knew that.)

The point was, that I had _not_ made the connection between that fact and my 
current .sig file, which contains a quotation from (a) Ras Tafari _via_ Bob 
Marley, and (b) Sinnead O'Connor.

I respect Ms O'Connor highly, and agree with what I take to be the basis of her 
statement; but I also do not intend to insult any members of the Roman Catholic church by flaunting this in their (virtual) faces.

Therefore I apologize to any and all such Catholics who may have been offended,
humbly and sincerely, and will attempt to suppress the .sig in any postings I
may make to this newsgroup until I've gotten tired of that one and put a new
quote in.

(An interesting side point:  None of the messages I have received have said "I'm
a Catholic and I was offended."  They have all been along the lines of "That was
very insensitive, there are Catholics on this newsgroup."  While I agree, I also
have to wonder if the people who've responded in this way aren't being a bit 
quick to be offended _for_ someone else? -- Of course, it may be that some of 
them _are_ Catholics, and chose for some reason not to mention that, or their 
own offendedness, but to put it in more neutral terms.  Selah.  Peace.  Christ 
be with you all.)

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

(There should be no sig below this!)
From: shetler@eemips.tamu.edu (Joy Shetler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:09:40 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

I have been a Christian since I was about 11 years old.  I met and married
a man who had "attended" a different church.  After our marriage, he decided
that he was an atheist.  At the time, I was not strongly involved in a church.
After over 10 years of occasionally arguing about religion, I decided to
return to attending church on a regular basis.  To my surprise, and everyone
else's, my husband tagged along, "To convince me that this was all foolishness!"
I ended up, about 3 months later, being the one who led him to Christ while
we were washing dishes together one night.  I, of course, am very fond of
the passage in 1 Corinthians 7:16.

The questions about headship have been discussed frequently between us.  At
first, it was obvious that I was more spiritually mature.  As time progressed,
we've been married for almost 19 years, he has achieved a deeper understanding
of his Christian walk.  Our relationship has benefitted tremendously from this.
He and I have agreed to treat each other as equals while allowing each of us
to exercise those gifts that God gave us.  I am more scholarly and inclined
to study the Bible, while he tends to put into practice the things he learns.
The argument that we use when other people criticize him for not "being the
man of the house" or me for "not submitting as a good wife should" are this:

For some time he was bedridden and I had to carry on the whole household.  If
God truly intended for me to NOT make any decisions in our marriage, then why
did he provide me with this training period?  If God intended my husband to
make all the rules and be the leader in all things, then why did he give me
the gift of being able to understand the Bible and teach him when he was a
"baby" Christian?

We do attend a church where women are not allowed to speak from the pulpit.
We disagree with this practice but do gain a lot from other aspects of the
fellowship.  After discussing our beliefs with the elders, we "agreed to
disagree" silently.  I can only say that if you are in a situation where
your potential is not being fulfilled, you should prayerfully try to follow
what you think God wants of you.  Without bragging, we have been able to
reach thousands through our Christian ministries.  If we had allowed these
problems with other Christians to "turn us away" from fellowship, many people
now would not have been exposed to God's word.  

In conclusion, I'd like to challenge those who believe one way or the other
about Christian headship to think less about how to behave towards each other
or Christians who disagree with you and more about how to reach a world which
is really dying from lack of the other more basic aspects of the Christian
message.

Dr. Joy Shetler
Texas A&M University
From: jafl@cco.caltech.edu (John Lindal)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Covenant House
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:48:15 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

First, let me say that I'm not affiliated with Covenant House at the
moment.  I'm just impressed, and thought others might like to hear
about it.


Covenant House is an organization that helps homeless kids.
The workers drive around every night offering food and drink to all
who need it and shelter at their facilities for all who accept.
Those who do accept shelter are also helped to re-enter the "normal"
life.  i.e. get a job, a permant place to live, etc.

Each person who works for C.H. takes a vow to stay for a specified amount of
time and to pray for 3 hours a day.

In my opinion, if anyone is out there spreading God's word and doing
His work, it's these people.

If you would like to contact Covenant House, you can send mail to:

Covenant House
P.O. Box 85901
Los Angeles, CA  90072-0901


John Lindal
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (10-13)
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:16:34 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Tuesday, October 13:

     Become kind to one nother, tenderly compassionate, freely 
forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave you.  
<Ephesians 4: 32>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: pruss@unixg.ubc.ca (Alexander Pruss)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:59:33 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <Oct.8.01.20.40.1992.12885@geneva.rutgers.edu> tbc@col.hp.com (Tim Chambers) writes:
>
>To summarize, the body and blood are simply (powerful) symbols, not to be
>taken literally.  And it can't be considered literal cannibalism if one
>doesn't believe the doctrine of transubstantiation (which the vast majority of
>Christians do not).

Last time I checked, the majority of Christians were Catholics, and Catholics
must hold the doctrine of the transsubstantion (defined, e.g., by Trent) else
they cease to be Catholics, i.e. are excommunicated.

In Christ,
Alex.

[According to the Almanac of the Christian World, in 1992 there are a
total of 1.692 to 1.833 billion Christians (depending upon
definition), of which .999 billion are Roman Catholics.  It's a bit
optimistic to claim that they all believe what they are supposed to,
but it's also hard to support the concept that the vast majority
of Christians don't believe in transsubstantiation, unless one
moves to subjective definitions of what it means to be Christian.
This discussion seems to be about at is useful end, don't you think?
--clh]
From: bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Revelations...
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:24:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


 
From: bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
>        How do you all out there know that they guy who wrote it
>was not mental ? I do not mean that as a flame or anything, but it
>seems as if the guy who wrote it was mental or on LSD or something...

mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) posted on Wed Oct 14 00:14:00 1992
>Because it was included by the Church in the canon of books
>which belong to the Bible. 
 
	So it's in the bible.....big deal..don't make it true.
 
 
>                            You could not say that the entire
>body of the Church was "mental" or "on LSD". Many other books
>(e.g. the "Gnostic gospels") were excluded because they did not
>seem to be of God. The nature of the Church, including all
>those institutional aspects against which so many complain and
>which leads them away from it towards Protestantism, is its
>guarantee against being influenced by human frailties such as
>mental illness.
 
 
	BTW, I should say a bit aobutmyself, so people will know
what angle I am coming from on this.
 
	I am an atheist who grew up in the Lutheran church..this
should clear up some confusion. I should have said that in my first
post so people would not be scratching their head thinking I am a 
theist with bizzare positions. You more than likely think of me
now as an atheist with weird positions :-)
 
 
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: allan@sunk.hc.ti.com (Allan Poindexter)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Calvin's excommunication
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:48:35 GMT

Does anyone know when (or if) Calvin was officially excommunicated by
the RCC?  Someone asked me this question recently and I have to admit it
has me stumped.  Luther's excommunication can be pinpointed at 3 January
1521 in the bull _Decet_Romanum_ but after looking in every obvious
source that I can access easily I can pinpoint no such date for Calvin.
Was he ever officially excommunicated?  Were there too many Protestants
around by the 1530s for the RCC to excommunicate them individually?  Is
it really possible that Calvin went to his grave without being
officially separated from Rome?  That's a wild proposition I admit but I
am beginning to wonder if it's true.

dex

[As far as I know, Rome has never felt it necessary to excommunicate
each Protestant individually.  Excommunication means being out of
communion with the Church.  Someone who departs from it or forms
another church can be thought of as having excommunicated himself.
Luther's case is unusual because he originally tried to work within
the Roman Catholic Church.  Thus in some sense Rome pushed him out.
Calvin came along slightly later.  He rejected Rome, first by
resigning his benefices (these seem to have been routine at the time
for students), and then by participating in Protestant circles, and
eventually becoming a leader at Geneva.  He was briefly imprisoned at
one point for heresy, but I haven't seen that he was formally
excommunicated.  It's not impossible, but in the circumstances it may
be that no one thought it was necessary.  Interestingly enough, his
father was excommunicated.  --clh]
From: danny@utkux1.utk.edu (Danny W. McCampbell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Bible Promise Stack
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:28:27 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee

To All Members of this group,

I have recently in the last couple of months finished a Hypercard Stack
for the Macintosh entitled The Bible Promise Stack.  The stack is
very similar to the Bible Promise Books you find in Christian Book
Stores except in the form of a Hypercard stack.  It is recommended
for System 7 use but will run under earlier systems.  The only 
disable feature under System 6.0x will be balloon help.  I have place
the stack at sumex-aim.stanford.edu for those of you who have ftp
privileges.  If you cannot get to it there let me know and I would be
happy to send the stack to you via e-mail or on a floppy.  I might 
tell you the stack is about 1.3 meg so if you want it via e-mail then
you had better have a big buffer.  

Just wanted to let you all know for those who are interested in this
stuff.  By the way, the stack is Shareware and the price is whatever
God would have you to send me or whatever you can afford.  God bless
you all.  I love you.

Danny McCampbell

[I do not allow advertisements.  This is borderline, because shareware
is commercial software, even if low-priced.  The only reason I'd consider
it is because payment is voluntary.  If readers feel that this is
inappropriate, please send me email.  --clh]
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:15:54 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <Oct.2.00.46.56.1992.1629@geneva.rutgers.edu>, DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) writes:
> Job 13:15 says, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
[...]
> But should we be faithful to God only because of what WE can get out of it?
> If faithfulness to God DIDN'T pay off (e.g. if there was no heaven, 
> or if the person knew somehow that he was going to hell anyways) 
> would there be any possibility of encouraging the person to remain 
> faithful to God?

     The question you raise is something of an embarrassment for
contemporary Protestant Christianity (at least), in two ways.  One,
Judaism has throughout most of its history done mostly without the
afterlife theme; for most Jews the reward for a good life has been
simply the good life itself.  (So martyrdom has been seen quite
differently in the two religions, and there's a whole new
discussion.)  Two, secular philosophers from Plato to Kant have
confronted the problem of whether reward-seeking virtue could
possibly be true virtue, and their answers have largely been in the
negative.  So Christians have to worry about "keeping up with the
philosophers" (Do not even the philosophers do the same? etc.)

     So Christians (and Moslems) have to live with this "pie in the
sky" business from secularists and others (though I've met Xians of
the more liberal persuasions who play down afterlife or even reject
it and themselves taunt Fundamentalists with "pie in the sky").

     My tendency is to think that perhaps Christianity is the only
religion that is being completely honest about man's fear of death
and desire for eternal life (if, as Unamuno and Ernest Becker (_The
Denial of Death_) appear to argue, it is universal; and I'm sure
some other religionists would deny that it is).  I think it's very
important to see that Christianity is not about intellectualism but
about ordinary people, for whom surely our persons, everything that
we are, cannot possibly have meaning if one day we simply cease to
exist.  A Christian might well argue that denial of this is simply
folly, that is, foolishness; and the philosophers and practitioners
of other religions are simply kidding themselves.

     The biblical answer is of course in the verse from Job you
quoted, and in the story of Abraham and Isaac (if Abraham had slain
Isaac, the entire point of the OT, the development of the Jewish
people, would have been thwarted by God Himself!).  If God is God,
then no matter what our understanding of His ways, we have *no
choice* but to face reality.

     I'd be interested to hear what others think, or of writings on
the subject that would be worth considering.
-- 
-Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> {Sometimes you have to look reality straight
 OPINIONS ARE MY OWN            {in the eye, and deny it. - G. Keillor
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:18:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Oct.8.01.20.40.1992.12885@geneva.rutgers.edu> tbc@col.hp.com (Tim Chambers) writes:
>clh writes:
>> Point 3 applies specifically to Catholics only...
>
>I assume you are referring to Roman Catholics.  The official term is
>"transubstantiation."  My priest says this doctrine is becoming less
>widespread but is still official.  He gave me a copy of the definition from _A
>Dictionary of Christian Theology_ -- see that source for more

{stuff dealing with metaphorical cannibalism deleted)


I was a Roman Catholic until two years ago, and spent many years
trying to reconcile more fundamentalist and Biblical-based Christian
concepts to the Catholic faith.  I enjoyed the Mass very much, and
I would like to comment on transubstantiation.

As I was taught, during the last supper, Jesus  was pointing out to
his disciples that God became Man, and God could take on ANY form.
By saying, "This is my body...", Jesus was saying that even simple
bread could convey God, if that was God's purpose.

During the mass, the bread becomes the body of Christ.  It is still
bread, but it conveys the spiritual essence.  And it can be a powerful
reminder that God is within us both as a church and as individuals.

The act of taking Communion leads to a spiritual nurishment;  the
act of taking Communion is a physical analog to the opening of our
hearts and mind to bring Christ within us.  The choice of bread
and wine was important;  they were two things that were available to
virtually everyone, and two things that were shared rather than
individually consumed.

As for what is believed, I can speak only for myself, not for others
in the Catholic church (then or now).  I believed that Christ was
present in the bread and wine.  It made it difficult for me to take
Communion if I was feeling unworthy (a major problem with Catholicism
which lead me to reborn-Christianity - but that is another topic).

Mary Otto
From: wheeler@edp.edsg.hac.com (Bob Wheeler ird)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:31:28 GMT
Reply-To: edp!wheeler@uunet.uu.net (Bob Wheeler ird)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <Oct.13.01.23.22.1992.21971@geneva.rutgers.edu> cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board) writes:

>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?

As an atheist you have your own religion.

You have a right to donate money to something that you believe in,
including non-profit atheist consciousness groups (e.g. M. O'Hare).
If, as per your personal beliefs, giving money to a charity makes the
world a better place to live in (e.g. Greenpeace, the Republican
Party, Little Sisters of Charity) then you do so and take a
subsidiezed tax break.  If you think your world is a better place to
live in by keeping all or most of your money, you do so.

We Christians make those decisions daily.  How much do we tithe.  Many
people tithe well over the 10% mark.  Many others (myself) tithe well
below it.  And we give to charities other than the Church.

Finally, giving money to a church is more than supporting the Church.
My church gives 10% of its donations to charity.  My church organizes
groups that work with the homeless and Aids victims.  My church has a
psychological counselor on staff for Teens to help them deal with
suicide, drugs, parents, etc.

In many ways, donating to a Church is like donating to the United Way.
It includes many umbrella charities and ministries which get glossed
over by someone that doesnot understand the works.

	Peace.

	Bob Wheeler

[I am not interested in discussions here as to whether atheism is
a religion.  For this posting, it's sufficient simply to take the
first statement as meaning that there are also organizations for
atheists that are tax-deductible.  --clh]
From: aslt@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History?
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:20:10 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

Is Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History worth getting?  How 
useful/accurate/impartial is it?  What particular axes did he 
have to grind?

Thanks.  E-mail replies welcome.

Lee
From: mcconley@athena.mit.edu (Marc W Mcconley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:14:07 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <Oct.5.23.46.59.1992.8217@geneva.rutgers.edu> cree@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Michael Cree) writes:
>However it is interesting to note how scientists have tried very very hard
>to get away from big bang cosmology, particularly the singularity at the 
>origin of time, which implies a creation type event including the formation
>of matter out of nothing.

And the moderator responds:
>[As I understand it, in theories like this, a singularity is an area
>where the mathematics produces impossible (e.g. infinite) values.
>Thus strictly speaking the model breaks down at that point.  ...  I
>don't think it's unreasonable for scientists to look for a model that
>doesn't break down.  --clh]

Stephen Hawking's _A_Brief_History_of_Time_ is an excellent book to read on
the subject, but a warning: it's presented from an agnostic point of view.
Hawking basically brings up some of these same issues from a standpoint of
questioning whether a Creator was necessary.  He presented some of these
proposed arguments about the non-singularity of the big bang, but later in
the chapter he seems (IMO) dissatisfied with this notion.  In particular, if
we were to completely eliminate singularities from our universal model, that
would also of necessity eliminate black holes, a phenomenon the study of which
Hawking himself has been a pioneer, and one which certainly seems to have
increasing evidence of support.

+-------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Marc W. McConley        | "But a natural man does not accept the things  |
| Ashdown House Room 509B | of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness |
| 305 Memorial Drive      | to him, and he cannot understand them, because |
| Cambridge  MA  02139    | they are spiritually appraised.  But he who is |
| Phone:  617-225-9823    | spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself |
| mcconley@athena.mit.edu | is appraised by no man."  -- I Cor. 2:14-15    |
+-------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
From: cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:23:23 GMT

|> I think LB is right on.  I have a friend (a VERY close friend)  who is worth
|> over $500,000,000.  Even back when he was only worth a measly $2-3 million, he
|> gave more than half his annual income to missionaries and seminarians.  Today
|> the gov't has seen fit to lock all his finances so that he can't touch them,
|> while they investigate someone else!  (This was in wallstreet J and on CNN;
|> also they were constantly investigating him because his taxable income was so
|> small because of his charitable giving)  Many missionaries and many seminarians
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> are now in trouble because of this.  (We even started to support his boy in
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> seminary).  Yet, he hasn't gone hungry in these last 2 years, though he has had
|> to sell his house & all.  (Please pray for Mr. Tracy and his wife who has
|> cancer)


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?