HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:30:30 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

[Of 48 articles submitted today, 19 were on this topic.  I've chosen
about half of them, what are representative of the range of
submissions.  --clh]


In article <Jul.21.02.39.00.1992.27881@dumas.rutgers.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>Question:  Should a church be expelled form a convention if it
>contains homosexuals in its congregation?
>
>Answer: No.  Although homosexuality can be shown to be an evil from a 
>biblical stance, any supported evil of homosexuality should not
>take precedence over the forgivingness of Christ.  

Hold it right there - this is not so.

In the Old Testament acts of buggery were associated with ritual practises
of non-jews - and were as such to be avoided.

In the New Testament Paul condemns sexual immorality in the form of 
Pedastry, rife in Greece, and the orgiastic lifestyle of the Romans. He
never saw two people of the same sex 'in love' and expressing that love
physically - such a thing was unthinkable in that time.

As such it is rediculous to use texts from the Bible to condemn homosexuals,
as the 'gay culture' (horrible phrase I disagree with - but you get my drift),
of today simply did not exist.

The sooner Christians realise that homosexuals have spirituality and 
experiences of God that would enrich the church the better.

Dave
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Kinseyian Theology
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:55:45 GMT

Inevitably, the Kinsey report pops up in discussions of homosexuality.
The Louie Crew side brings it forth as evidence; the Paul Hudson side
attempts to discredit it.

This sort of survey study in fact poses numerous problems in a theological
context.  To start with, let's take the Kinsey study itself.  A book has
come out in the last several years titled _Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud_ (our copy
is unfortunately packed away, so I can't supply the vital statistics).  This
book I view with a certain distrust since it has the flavor of a negative
political spot; nevertheless, the charges it makes concerning methodology
and intent are not, in my view, subject to summary dismissal.  The picture
painted is of a sample heavily loaded with prison population, and it is
alleged (with, apparently, good evidence) that the section on child
sexuality was obtained entirely from child abusers.  Moreover, Kinsey
himself is cited several times to the effect that his study did indeed have
a polemic intent.  I have heard other studies cited which give rather
different figures than Kinsey's.

At any rate, the classic _How to Lie With Statistics_ is full of examples
from Kinsey.  The meaningfulness of this kind of survey is quite dubious
without some independent qualification, for a long list of reasons which I
won't go into here (everyone should read _How to Lie..._ anyway).

Also, citing it at all begs the question of the relationship between
sociology and theology (especially moral theology).  In the first few
chapters of the Bible we are taught that human nature is fundamentally
warped by sin; therefore, propensity to homosexuality is not fundamentally
more acceptable than, say, propensity to child abuse or theft.  A very large
part of morality lies in suppressing our urges to sin; that we have these
urges is a part of the problem, not an excuse to give in to them.

I'm not necessarily asserting here that homosexuality IS necessarily sin.
I'm just pressing the point that appeals to scientific studies are
essentially irrelevant.  Homosexuality as a moral issue cannot be
transformed into an issue of scientific fact.  Appeals to Kinsey--
regardless of the scientific validity of his results-- are not legitimate
moral arguments.
-- 
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: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Abuse and Divorce
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:47:57 GMT
Organization: Rice University

Some people in this discussion have said that when one member of a covenant
lets down their end of the bargain, the other is no longer bound by
the agreement.  This was supplemented by a discussion of how if someone 
does something with a death penalty in the Law attached, they are
then "dead" and any covenants they are in no longer are binding.

I cannot reconcile this with several things found in the Bible.
Firstly, Israel was God's "bride," and was unfaithful and adulterous
many times in the OT.  However God did not depart the covenant.  Perhaps
He could have, but was just being more forgiving, perhaps He was still bound.
Under any circumstances, not leaving seems to be the better way.

Also, I find that the "death" analogy is very misleading.  Firstly, we
are not bound by the Law.  Secondly, does not all sin lead to death?
But are we as Christians not "dead to sin?"  I would argue that this
analogy is without basis.  Paul never mentions it, and he is fond of making
analogies like that.  
As a side note, other things that cause death in the OT include having
unkempt hair (Leviticus 10:6).  Using this argument a wife may leave her
husband for being messy.

If anyone is informed about Jewish views of covenants at the time please share 
that with us.

Ernest Mueller
From: acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Parable?
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:02:15 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo

In article <Jul.26.16.20.27.1992.20992@dumas.rutgers.edu>, brown@ncoast.org (Stan Brown) writes...
> 
>(*) That is not to say that "the world" disproves Christianity, or any
>other religion for that matter.  It is simply not a resolution of the
>question either way.  If you already have faith, you will see many
>aspects of the world as confirming that faith.  If you do not, then
>whether you are actively opposed to Christianity or simply trying as
>best you can to find the truth, you will not see those same aspects as
>proving anything.

	I respect your position. It reflects openness and honesty in 
	viewing the world. Too often people will only view the world
	through their limited map/interpretation of the territory/world
	which is usually the result of not stepping back to see if they 
	are not mistaking the map for the actual territory.

	The problem with the map of "no faith" is that the individual
	will notice a world unsupported by faith. Likewise, the person
	following the map of "blind faith" interrpets the world according
	to his/her beliefs usually tacking on his/her own meaning.
	The better map is the map of "faith" which denotes all from
	God, but realizes that what God does is not exclusive to one
	such map. 

	What is interresting is that each map of the territory will
	always seem correct to those who do not realize they've only
	got a map.

	Thanks for your time,
				Ismail
From: cho@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Il Hyung Cho)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Jesus' favorite Disciple
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:06:04 GMT
Organization: LORAL - Western Development Lab

Going through the book of the Christ never states who is favorite
disciple is?  Or did he?  Being the character He is, I'm not quite 
sure of who he (favorite disciple) was/is.  If anyone can elighten
me with your interpretation of who can this be, please send me
email or post your comments.  I have others telling me it was . . .
Well let's wait and see.   If it is any interests to all, maybe I'll
post the results/comments.  Thanks. . . 

In Christ

Il Hyung Cho
cho@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: End of the World Predictions: General Theory
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:45:22 GMT
Organization: Fermilab

In article <Jul.23.03.37.39.1992.17570@dumas.rutgers.edu>
whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>Inquiring minds want to know . . .
>Given that there is a verse (variously interpreted) about "no one
>knows the day or the hour", and

You didn't quote it far enough. It does state that you will know the season. 
The illustration of the woman in labor is that she doesn't know the time of
delivery, but she sure knows when she is in "transition". So it is with the end
times.  Do we know the hour, (no) do we know the day, (no) are we to know the
year, (no) or the decade, not necessarily (unless there is no rapture), but you
will know the season at that is when the dry bones come alive, that is when the
fig tree (Israel) is in bloom and ready to bare fruit.  So we can have an
indicator, but not a specific.  
Just as a by note, when Christ said that even He didn't know the hour, you need
to take into consideration that this was before His re-glorification when He
put back on His Divine attributes.
>
>This does not preclude that a given prediction will have a time and
>date beyond which the specific prediction can be said to have been in
>error or to have 'failed'.

I know that there are those who will have problems with this statement, but I
make only to myself.  If I don't see the rapture, or the 2 Advent in my life
time (without a restoration of faith within the church) then it will be a test
of faith for me in my later years.  I really mean it.  Prophecy is how I became
interested in the reasonableness of Xianity, and though I have learned that
there is so much more than this to the Xian life and doctrine, it still is an
important verification point.

>For example . . .
>
>If one were to predict, say, that the references to the world ending
>"before this gneeration passes away" were said to apply to the cohort
>of 1914, and (as some do) there is a claim of an upper bound on human
>lifespan of 120 years, then one can say that such a prediction fails
>if the world is still here in pretty much it's present form after
>2034.


Actually, the quote "this generation will not pass away" is important at this
vector.  The Jewish generation was 35-45 yrs in Christ's day, by the latest
Jewish sources that I have.  So, if we hold that the secular establishment of
Israel (1947) is the beginning of that generation, then by the end of the
millenium we should witness the 2nd advent.  Of course some hold that it must
be a "religious" return to the land for the generation to start.  Either way, I
personally feel that we are in the midst of *the* generation.  ("Even as in the
time of Noah," "in the later days" such and such will happen, "when people are
saying peace and safety,"  "when Israel is without walls," etc.)

Even so Lord, come.
Rex
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dear Abby Column
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:33:49 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Jul.26.16.26.17.1992.22036@dumas.rutgers.edu>, amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik) writes:
> David Cruz-Uribe writes:
> 
> >P.S.  Out of curiosity, what is "Dear Abby"'s religious affiliation,
> >if any?
> 
> Abigail Van Buren, who was born Pauline Esther Friedman, is Jewish.
> So whatever God she believes in, I don't think it's the Christian
> one... :)

Last *I* heard, Christians were maintaining that Jews and Christians
beleive in the same God.  Many folks included to Moslems, as well.
Has this changed?  Recently?

	--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

[I got a couple of responses saying the same thing.  As I'm sure most
of our readers know, the view that the OT God and the NT God are
different people was rejected as heresy.  I hope Susan meant to
contrast the Jewish view of God with the Christian view of God, and
not to suggest that there are somehow two separate gods involved.
--clh]
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Books on The Passion??
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:09:18 GMT
Reply-To: markc@eomer.sw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Hardware Engineering

>I would appreciate suggestions on books that study The Passion of Our
>Lord from any given angle (prayer or spirituality, tradition, 
>interpretation,...)

>Thanks,
>Alvaro

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Edersheim is a good
reference.  It walks throught the life of Jesus and helps clarify
some areas by looking at the culture of the times.  As far as
I know, it is totally scriptually based and does not try to
interpret eveything from a human standpoint.

mark
From: smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:33:43 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow) writes:

>In the Old Testament acts of buggery were associated with ritual practises
>of non-jews - and were as such to be avoided.
>In the New Testament Paul condemns sexual immorality in the form of 
>Pedastry, rife in Greece, and the orgiastic lifestyle of the Romans. He
>never saw two people of the same sex 'in love' and expressing that love
>physically - such a thing was unthinkable in that time.

Um, no. In the Greek culture, man-man relationships were (at times) considered
quite good and proper, better in some ways than man-woman relationships.
Not only was it thinkable, but it was acceptable and done. 

>As such it is rediculous to use texts from the Bible to condemn homosexuals,
>as the 'gay culture' (horrible phrase I disagree with - but you get my drift),
>of today simply did not exist.

You want to reread the latter half of Romans 1. Paul obviously understood that
same-sex relationships occured, and considered it evidence of a people
more or less abandoned by God. You'll notice that they were not abandoned
by God because they were homosexual; they became homosexual, in Paul's
opinion, because they had turned away from God. You see this theme elsewhere
in the Bible: turning away from God doesn't only insult God, but causes
earthly problems as well. 

>The sooner Christians realise that homosexuals have spirituality and 
>experiences of God that would enrich the church the better.

Of course. Anyone who tries to find God and the salvation offered through
Jesus can succeed, whatever sins may be in their life. I don't think
anyone disputes it. The only question is whether a homosexual should 
continue to obey these feelings, having become a Christian. The Biblical
answer doesn't seem to leave any room for that. But then, it isn't
discussed. 
--
These are only my opinions.  You should hear my convictions.
smayo@wang.com
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mixed belief relationships (was Re: Electronic Matchmaker)
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:01:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dunkelberg) wrote:

  >Now, I know there are people who have married outside their religion
  >and had wonderful and long lives together.  Has anyone had luck or
  >problems with this?


Dear John:

From the standpoint of peaceful coexistence, love, and respect there
is not necessarily a problem when a believer and a non-believer marry.
Many couples of mixed belief share satisfactory life-long marriages,
as long as their core values are similar.

The tensions I have observed firsthand in mixed-belief marriages among
my friends and relatives arose from three main sources:

a. Disagreement over the religious education of children can be a cause of
   friction.  It is helpful to work out a policy for this before the fact, 
   but any after-the-fact renegotiation tends to be contentious.

b. If the believing spouse highly values an intense communion with God through
   disciplines of prayer and meditation, the inability to share this in
   meaningful terms with the non-believing spouse can be frustrating.  It is
   emotionally similar to having two mutually estranged family members living
   under the same roof, loving both, but unable to bring them together.

c. The believing spouse may feel a calling to some activities connected with
   their belief,  which entail sacrifices of time or money on the
   part of the whole family.  The non-believer may feel neglected and
   resentful because the urgency of the sacrifice is not valid for them.
   Conversely, the believer may feel stifled and unsupported even when
   the non-believer feels him/herself to be making every reasonable effort
   to accommodate.

Case in point: imagine yourself with a Christian wife who wanted to
host a weekly Bible study group for the purpose of .... well, putting
it bluntly ... evangelizing other couples in your neighborhood.
(Let's suppose an open, Socratic discussion format, not hard-sell
indoctrination.)  How uncomfortable would you be in seeing your mutual
friends actively "evangelized"?  How far would your non-belief allow
you to go in supporting her goals?  Wishing her well and retreating to
the den?  Helping with the set-up and clean-up?  Could you attend in
good conscience?  If you participated actively, how could you both be
true to your own beliefs and not undermine her?  If you declined to
participate, would that undermine her?

I am not implying that mixed-belief marriage can't work.  There are
too many cases where it seems to, but there are almost always compromises
requiring both spouses to compartmentalize their lives in the interest
of harmony.  For *some* devout people, such compartmentalization is either
morally unacceptable or psychologically unhealthy.

Best wishes,

Van Kelly
vek@allegra.att.com

This posting reflects my own opinions, not those of AT&T.
From: rxm20@po.cwru.edu (Robert Mitchell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Traditional
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:47:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: dumas.Jul.26.14.47.35.1992.4173
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

Any Liber Usualis enthusiests please write.
-- 
E-mail is always welcome
Internet address: rxm20@po.cwru.edu
From: keiner@earthview.cms.udel.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:38:11 GMT

In article 27881@dumas.rutgers.edu, onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>Question:  Should a church be expelled form a convention if it
>contains homosexuals in its congregation?
>
> {Answer skipped}
>
>Question: Should a church be expelled from a convention if it contains
>a ordinated homosexual minister?
>
> {Answer skipped}
>

This could be argued, as it has before, as to whether or not homosexuality
itself is inherently a sin or whether it was a cultural bias on the part of 
early Christian writers such as Paul. I believe that sexual orientation is
not a choice of the individual but is rather a result of heredity and up-
bringing, and therefore cannot be a sin.

The issue here, as I see it, is one of church control. As a Southern Baptist,
I have seen events such as these happen recently in my denomination, and 
I assume that is to what Mr. Onstott is referring. Baptists have a long
history of local church autonomy, meaning the local church is the final
authority on questions of belief and practice pertaining to that church. The
state and national conventions were set up in order to facilitate the sharing
of resources for missions. Participation is on a voluntary basis. In the past
membership was based on "Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior
and accept the Bible as God's word?" leaving the interpretation of God's word
to the local church.
 
In recent years, it has been the policy of those who control the national
convention that all churches and members must adhere to the same interpretation
of scripture as they; those who don't are not welcome. I do not deny that it
is legal under the setup of the convention for it to throw out churches that
do not conform to the beliefs of the majority, but it goes against the history
of letting the local church decide for itself how to interpret scripture.

It sets a dangerous precedent to expell churches for differences in scriptural
interpretation. Granted, this is an important issue, but how far are church
leaders (whatever their denomination) ready to go in requiring doctrinal
conformity? I believe that if such continues, dogmatic church leaders will 
find that they are the only ones left in a once thriving denomination.

Peace,

Louis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis E. Keiner - College of Marine Studies              "Violence is the 
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716                  last refuge of the
keiner@earthview.cms.udel.edu                             incompetent." - IA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Parable?
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:08:47 GMT
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia

In <Jul.22.02.08.32.1992.13595@dumas.rutgers.edu> kemery@nmsu.edu writes:

>Subject: Parable? (was Re: apply Doubting Thomas to today...how?)

>smayo.wang.com writes:

[Reference to Rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16:27-31]

>Just a quick statement here.  This was not a parable.  If you read
>carefully you will see Jesus say "There was a man..."  Everywhere
>else in the Bible you read "Jesus taught them a parable..." etc.
>It doesn't negate your point,  but I think accuracy helps.

I don't think this is correct.  What about Matthew 13:44-50.  I think
that everyone would agree that there are three parables here (the
treasure in the field, the pearl, and the net), and yet there is no
introductory formula apart from "The kingdom of heaven is like..."

Another example would be the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37).  It has
the same introduction as does the rich man and Lazarus.  Would you then
claim that it was a true story?

The Greek construction "a certain man (anthropos tis)" is used in these
(I think - I don't have a Greek NT with me), which is a classic opening
for a fictional story.  It's sort of analogous to "Once upon a time..."
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: John 1:1, Luke 1:30,34,35, the divinity of Jesus, etc.
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:50:27 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

CASTILLO@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu writes:

>I have a couple of questions, and I'll just list them:

>c) I think I understand what the Trinity is, but it would be nice if
>someone could explain it to me, so that I could explain it to others.  (It
>isn't an easy thing to do)



(Hans Urs van Balthazar gives something like this:) God the Father is God as 
perfect (total) lover. God the Son is the perfectly (totally) beloved,
(made neccesary by the Father being the pefect lover). The perfect love they 
have is the the Holy Spirit. All in all, God is Love. His perfection and 
infinity demand a trinity, with him as subject, object and verb: otherwise he 
could not be perfect, and would need something else to love, or to be love by, 
or to demonstrate his love. But he needs nothing, he is perfect. 


There is but one God. If he needed anything else, that thing would be in a sense
equal to him, which would mean two Gods. The trinity explains how
there can be only one God, but yet a God who is Love. Christians 
believe that the God the Son took on human flesh as Jesus.


-ricko