HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Newsweek: Gays Under Fire
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:44:13 GMT


Barry Wadsworth writes:

> Once again, Christians are made to look like the force of evil and
> homosexuals are raised to saintly martyrdom.  We must have great compassion
> for our fellow human beings [...]  But that does not mean that we must
> accept their ways.

I don't think they particularly want you to accept their ways; I think a lot
of them just want to be left alone.  For some reason, many Christians aren't
willing to do this.

This basic refusal to leave others alone is why the Jews were expelled from
Spain, why we had Crusades, and why the Puritans hung witches and Quakers in
Massachusetts -- all situations in which Christians were the Bad Guys.  I do
not know why Christians have historically opposed "shaking the dust off their
feet", nor do I know why Christians living today continue the practice.  In
any case, our fellow believers have done, and continue to do, lots of
unjustifiable things.  The people we do things TO consider us the Bad Guys.
Maybe we should stop doing those things, but we never do.


> Homosexual acts are in direct opposition to the Christian faith.

Then don't do any of them.


> How is it that our country is plagued with this problem?

I'm not sure I understand this question, but here are several answers
depending on what you mean to ask:

 a) Because 10% of the population is homosexual.

 b) Because this isn't a Christian country.

 c) Because it's a country full of sinners, and sinners sin.

 d) Because some people believe that civil government should not be used
    except in cases of maintaining public order, and that homosexuals are
    not, as a class, a threat to the public order.

There are lots of other things that contribute to the `problem'.  In my view,
the major problem is that some Christians are not satisfied with doing the
work Christ commanded.  They fancy themselves qualified to be benevolent
despots -- but those living under the Christians' despotism do not find it at
all benevolent.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Christian, n.  One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired
 book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor."
                                 -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:10:28 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         Brad Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      re: No True Church?

>> It is a common Protestant belief that no infallible church exists -- that is,
>> that there is no denomination, church leader, or school of theology that
>> is guaranteed to be free from doctrinal error.

>> As I would use the words, this is not the same as saying that there is no
>> "true church" and that God has deserted us.  I believe that God is present
>> with all of us who follow Christ, and I see the collection of all Christians,
>> Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and others, as together being the "true
>> church".  We're terribly fragmented, and we often don't exhibit Christ's
>> love towards one another, but I see this as an ongoing struggle with hell
>> in which hell has not prevailed against us; God's grace and love have
>> remained with us through the struggle.


God is certainly present among believers of many denominations,
Catholic, Protestant, and others.

But what church is the 'pillar and foundation of truth' mentioned in 1
Tm 3:15 ?

Who teaches the "sound doctrine of Our Lord" described in 1 Tm 6:3 and
2 Tm 4:3 ?

You cannot say "the Bible does".  I read the Bible too, quite a bit.
It tells me to stay in the Catholic Church at all cost, including that
of my own life.  (No, not in a specific verse; I'm talking about the
overall understanding I have of Scripture.)  It doesn't say that to
you.  Both of us cannot be right, from God's point of view.

I see, as you say, quite a bit of fragmentation in Christendom.  I
don't see that as part of God's plan, Scripturally speaking.

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

  "Hatred destroys.  Only love creates."
            -- St. Maximilian Kolbe, shortly before his arrest and
               martyrdom at the hands of the Nazis.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Jenkins quote...
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:07:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9209071540.AA17108@mcsun.EU.net>, Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK writes...

>|>Remember
>|>the stir caused by the (then newly appointed) Bishop of Durham
>|>Prof. David Jenkins a few years ago ?  "Church of England
>|>Bishop say Resurection didn't happen"  That was not actually
>|>what he said
>|
>|	I remember the quote as being that the resurrection was a
>|"conjuring trick with bones."  This came shortly after he made the
>|news when he publicly questioned the virgin birth of Christ.
> 
>What he actually did on both occasions was question if it was a
>valid belief - if people could/should believe in the event or if
>it was one huge con.  He was quoted out of context.  I have since
>read both addresses in full and it was more like this :
>"people may indeed say it was a con trick but this is how we believe
>it actually was ....., what do you say"

	I did not read either address by Jenkins.

	The information that I had came from a trustworthy 
evangelical monthly. I have no reason to doubt them. However, I have 
no reason to doubt Carol either. She states that Jenkins was quoted 
out of context; that would be twice in fact, once for the denial of 
the Virgin birth, and once for referring to the resurrection as a 
"conjuring trick with bones."

	If my source is wrong, I wish to know that. Is there any way 
that I could obtain both of Jenkins addresses?


 en agape,
 Bob 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:57:35 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         Brad Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Re>Absolution
              8 Sep 1992 10:13:00 N <9209080817.AA07542@motgate.mot.com>

Wolfgang Hutter writes:

>> I may have understood the RC teaching, but want to be sure to get things
>> right, so I will try to summarize what I have come to think is the
>> offical view of the RCC: a RC receives forgiveness through confession
>> and only through confession, unless he is hindered by force majeure in
>> which case his repentance and wish to confess count. The non-RC
>> Christians however receive forgiveness without confession even if they
>> would have the opportunity to confess.

That's a correct statement of the *outcome* of the theology.  In other
words, that's the effect of the theology on one's daily life.

The theology itself says that baptism and confession are necessary for
salvation (assuming one dies after reaching the age of reason; if not,
confession is not necessary, because personal sin is not yet possible).
Either sacrament can be received in three ways:

   * actually
   * by explicit desire
   * by implicit desire

To receive "actually" means that one is actually baptized or actually
confesses.  To receive by "explicit desire" means that one interiorly
desires to receive the sacrament actually, but is prevented from doing
so, presumably by force majeure, as you say.  That's the case that
covers the Catholic who is hit by a car on his way to confession.  To
receive by "implicit desire" means that one interiorly *does not know*
that he should receive the sacrament actually; however, his heart and
will are oriented toward God, such that if he *did* know that he
needed to receive the sacrament actually, he would do so.  That's the
case that covers the faithful Protestant Christian.

In Christ's Peace,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

  "Hatred destroys.  Only love creates."
            -- St. Maximilian Kolbe, shortly before his arrest and
               martyrdom at the hands of the Nazis.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:42:43 EDT
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      roommate prayer--whoops!

There's 40,000 students, maybe you all figured that out!
Not a small college, anyway :-)

Carol
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:12:20 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re>Matthew 24 -- when? pt. 1
              4 Sep 1992 17:01:33 EDT from <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>

Dear Leo ;

By its inherent design, escatalogical Scripture references do not and cannot
have double meaning.
Double meaning exists only in Scripture when such a case is EXPLICITLY stated.
Otherwise, it does not exist, for we do not communicate thusly, and neither
does the Lord to us, on our terms.



Jesse Carnes
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: jrussell@unlinfo.unl.edu (john russell)
Subject: Re: Secular Humanism
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:02:07 GMT

Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU> writes:

>Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
>Phone: 588-6757


>> Angela Zimerman is proposing to post "a flyer that has the beliefs
>> of the secular humanists." I have no objection to her doing so, but
>> I should like to point out that there is no Secular Humanist
>> organization, or any recognized leader. Most of those who say, "I am
>> a Secular Humanist," mean simply, "I do not believe in God or any
>> alleged supernatural entities or events." Those who do not believe
>> in God will not necessarily agree with one another about what they
>> do believe.
>>      So, when you read it, do not think of it as "what Secular
>> Humanists believe." Think of it as "what some Secular Humanists
>> believe."

>>  Yours,
>>  James Kiefer


>Hmm...let's see...what does it say here at the bottom of this flyer?

>"Free Inquiry, P.O. Box 5, Buffalo, NY 14215"
>"Distributed by Louisville Area Secular Humanists (LASH), P.O. Box 91554,
>Louisville, KY 40291"

>Hmm....that indicates that there is not one, but at least *two* organized
>groups of secular humanists.  Do we have an organized religion of sorts
>here?  I think so, although the secular humanists probably wouldn't admit
>it.  I also think that the beliefs listed on the flyer are broad enough
>to pretty much encompass anyone who claims to be a secular humanist.
>I still haven't read all the mail from Christia that I have piled up,
>but this post I wanted to make sure I responded to.  As soon as I finish
>reading the rest of the mail, I will type the entire flyer out and post
>it.

Let's not put the cart before the horse here. The label of "secular
humanist" was being stuck on people long before they thought of 
themselves as people sharing a common belief. Of course, once you
make people aware that they have something in common, they tend
to "congregate" into organized groups. This does not imply some sort
of conspiratorial alliance.

Also, I have a hard time thinking of secular humanism as a "religion"
with all that the term implies. "Philosophy," perhaps, might be more
appropriate. 

I am looking forward to hearing (or seeing) what these people have to
say. Thanks (in advance) for posting the flyer.

jr
From: ohoward@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Todd Howard)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Al Gore's (New Age) religious beliefs
Date: 12 Sep 1992 08:36:49 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:

>fact, true.

>I am not kidding.  They are serious about this.  And, oh yeah--
>I almost forgot--before consciousness is raised, 1/4 of the US
>population will be "cleansed" by the positive vibrations emanating
>from the Pacific Northwest site.)

See, even the New Age people have the rapture as part of their
doctrine!  Amazing where you can find a little truth.

Todd

>Love INC,

>--Kerry
-- 
 "The statistics on death are in, and they're pretty convincing.  One out
  of every one people die."   -Unknown

Todd O. Howard (ohoward@matt.ksu.edu)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:13:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Re>Absolution

I asked some questions in relation to confession of sins and forgiveness
as the Roman Catholic Church sees it. I received two answers, but wanted
to wait for Marty - who was my counterpart for some time - to give his
view. As he seems to be busy, I'll want to take up the issue now.

In a message of Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:31:45 CDT
Received on Tue,  1 Sep 92 20:32 N
Brad Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM> wrote:

>Just to add to Leo's post, I'd like to point out that, even for
>Catholics, forgiveness without absolution is abundantly possible, 'in
>extremis'.

He then goes on to say that if a RC repents and is hindered to confess
by an accident he is nevertheless forgiven, but that this does not mean
that a RC need not confess.

I may have understood the RC teaching, but want to be sure to get things
right, so I will try to summarize what I have come to think is the
offical view of the RCC: a RC receives forgiveness through confession
and only through confession, unless he is hindered by force majeure in
which case his repentance and wish to confess count. The non-RC
Christians however receive forgiveness without confession even if they
would have the opportunity to confess.

If this is not correct, please tell me so. Otherwise I would be in
danger of spreading false information.

Wolfgang <><
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: sola scriptura & the Holy Ghost
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Date: 11 Sep 92 10:39:50 -0500
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: rcrisp

How would sola scriptura or sola ecclesia have been presented, if it had been
intended?  Would the Master not clarify such a basic point of guidance to the
followers (the ones God had given him)?  Why not take the farewell discourse as
central to the matter of guidance?  What does John 14-15-16 foretell on the
matter?  Does it inform the disciples that he will have an infallible hierarchy
set up and that they must submit to its lording over their faith?  Does it
inform the disciples that he will have a 27 book document written and that we
must exercise our puny brains on it, so as not to miss a thing?  What did the
great Rabbi really offer?  Did he not promise to send the Spirit of Truth who
would guide into all truth?  Would this not be reinforced by the Lucan version
of the logion (saying)  'how much more will God not give his Holy Spirit to
those who demand it' and by the prediction of his cousin who said 'I baptize in
water, but He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire'?  If you would keep
demanding the Holy Ghost, how could you possibly be disappointed? 
Wouldn't it be a pleasure to throw of the shackles of Pharisee spirit of brain
plus Bible equals clobber people?  Wouldln't it be a relief not to be bound by
the Sadduccee (Zadokite) spirit of worldly dignity in priestly vestments and
having to endorse all the hypocrisies of the power structure?
'We are witnesses of these things and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom God has
given to them that obey Him.'  
Why express it Holy Ghost?  Doesn't something that sounds like 'gust' (of fresh
air) really work better than a term constantly abused by academics?  Doesn't
the scholarly dignity continually abuse 'the things of the spirit' to refer to
matters of aesthetics and the like?  Will some of you who do not now have the
Holy Ghost one day thank the Pentecostals for reminding you that this big buddy
comforter is aliver and weller than Satan on planet earth?
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: timk@world.std.com (Tim King)
Subject: Re: Re>Absolution
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:38:59 GMT

Hmmmm...  If I may butt in just a little.

I haven't really thought this through, but...

To attempt to paraphrase Brad and Leo -- and someone correct me if I'm
wrong...

(A) If a christian knows he must confess to a priest, he must do so.
(B) In the case that the above christian cannot confess to a priest, his
desire to do so counts as if he had actually done so.
(C) If, however, he does not know that he must confess, his sincere
confession before God counts as an authentic confession.


Now, my question is...

How is the above sequence effectively different from the following sequence?
(C) In order to be right with God, one only needs to confess his sins to God.
(A) If, however, he feels he needs to talk to a priest about it, it is a
good thing and pleasant in God's eyes.
(B) If, although he feels he needs to talk with a priest, he cannot, he
should be encouraged within himself that this inability to talk with a
priest in no way will affect his salvation.


Furthermore, if we can, without committing any heresy, take the emphasis off
of the act of confession to a priest, why can't the word "priest" in (A)
and (B) above be replaced with the words "qualified protestant minister"
(without, for now, defining the word "qualified")?


<St. Paul mode ON>
Sometimes I think that we get too bent out of shape over debatable,
philosophical issues that are really not all that important and should be
left to short-sighted philosophers who have nothing better to do with
their time than to argue.  Our strength, unlike the classic philosopher,
is not in our limited minds or our finite comprehension.  Our strength is
in our unlimited God and His infinite love and in the ability He's given
us to carry out His own commandment that we should show this unconditional
love to others, whether they be christian or not.
<St. Paul mode OFF>

How does the this correlate with Colossians 2?  (I don't have my bible with
me, so I can't check it out.)

-TimK
-- 
Tim King                  |  Some of us favor logic in making decisions.
24 Myrtle Street          |  Some, emotions.  I, personally, get very    |\
Dedham, MA 02026          |  emotional about faulty logic! :-)           | >
timk@world.std.com        |                                             <>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:39:13 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Anabaptists

James:

Thanks, but I believe Yvette was asking for input from people who are
Anabaptists.  You have missed two of the three major points of
Anabaptist theology.

I will post on this tomorrow, as it is getting far too late to go
into it right now.

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: DAVID, CHRISTIA
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:57:50 -0400
From:         Vicky Chai <VCHAI@SMITH.BITNET>
Subject:      Songrette - Find Us Faithful

"Ask faith to look through the keyhole of the promise and tell you
 what it sees there laid up for him that overcomes; ask it to listen
 and tell you whether it cannot hear the shout of those crowned
 saints receiving the reward of all their services and sufferings here
 on earth.  And do you stand on the other side afraid to wet your
 foot with those sufferings and temptations, which, like a little
 trickle of water, run between you and glory?"
                - William Gurnall, _The_Christian_In_Complete_Armour_


        FIND US FAITHFUL
    (Based on II Tim :7,8)

  We're pilgrims on the journey
  Of the narrow road,
  And those who've gone before us line the way.
  Cheering on the faithful, encouraging the weary,
  Their lives a stirring testament to God's sustaining grace.

  Surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,
  Let us run the race not only for the prize,
  But as those who've gone before us,
  Let us leave to those behind us,
  The heritage of faithfulness passed on through godly lives.

  Oh may all who come behind us find us faithful,
  May the fire of our devotion light their way.
  May the footprints that we leave,
  Lead them to believe,
  And the lives we live inspire them to obey.
  Oh may all who come behind us find us faithful.

  After all our hopes and dreams have come and gone,
  And our children sift through all we've left behind,
  May the clues that they discover and the memories they uncover,
  Become the light that leads them to the road we each must find.

  Oh may all who come behind us find us faithful.


  (Written by: Jon Mohr; Copyright: Birdwing Music/Jonathan Mark Music)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:09:39 EDT
From:         "St. John Koczan" <CA36%CATCC.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Ezekiel chapter 16:49-50

  Let me heard from you on Ezekiel 16:49-50. I think this post be
interesting.

    I have asked the average person why Sodom was destroyed by
 the Lord and they will cite the city's gross immorality.  However,
 Ezekiel reveals the REAL reason in chapter 16, verse 49-50,

       "Behold this was the guilt of your sister Sodom:
       she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food,
       and prosperous ease, but not aid the poor and need.
       They were haughty and did abominable thing before me;
       therefore I removed them, when I saw it"

    Sodom refused to aid the needy poor because of pride; that pride
comes selfishness and perversion.


  Any comments on that ??

--Stephen Kotchen
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject:  50-words-or-less definitions of "Christianity"
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:45:46 GMT


From a rock band:

"I was there when they crucified my Lord,
 I held the scabbard while the soldier drew his sword.
 I threw the dice when they pierced his side;
 But I've seen love conquer the great divide." -- U2


From a famous intellectual agnostic:

"Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has happened
 and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something that
 actually takes place in a human life.  For 'consciousness of sin' is a real
 event, and so are despair and salvation through faith.  Those who speak of
 such things (Bunyan, for instance) are simply describing what has happened to
 them, whatever anyone may want to say about it." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

(The second one is over 75 words, but that seemed okay since:
    a) the first one was short.
 and
    b) it also addresses objections that the descriptions are wrong; how
       can a skeptic say I'm not conscious of my sins?)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"If any substantial number of t.r.m readers read some Wittgenstein, 60% of the
 postings would disappear.  (If they *understood* some Wittgenstein, 98% would
 disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU