HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Question on the Bible
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:19:10 GMT

On <28 Sep 1992 21:56> Friend of Entropy said to All :

 FoE>        I find these opinions increadibly offensive, and not 
 FoE>merely isolated
 FoE>parts of the book, but built into the basic ideas i found:  
 FoE>guilt and punishment.

Well yes, you might find them offensive, but have you ever considered the 
possibility that some people might find some of your opinions offensive? If 
you want people to justify those opinions, what standards will you be using? 
And do you think your standards will be universally acceptable, or that they 
ought to be?

--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.5!Steve.Hayes
Internet: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A.N. Wilson's New Book.
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:12:49 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:

>I've just read an article about A.N. Wilson's new book where he explains
>why he lost his faith.

I note that C.S.Lewis' (step?) son, who live in Australia, has 
repudiated Wilson's bigraphy of Lewis, claiming he made bits of it
up. (In particular, about Lewis' pupported mistress.)

>One of his points is "unresovled contradictions" in the Gospels.

But since we only have finite mental capabilities and knowledge, why should
he (or anyone) be surprised if there are bits that don't gell at any one
time. Faith seeking understanding is more useful to a Christian than 
understanding seeking faith. 

If you've dealt with the mentally ill, you'll know that the understanding 
can be a house built on sand. Friendship with God is much stronger.

-ricko
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:57:55 GMT
Organization: Wheaton College, IL

I think I've found a somewhat more concise way of answering it (my previous
post has elaboration):

There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor
female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus

(Galatians 3:28)

################################################################################
# "God, give me mountains # "But the greatest   # Jonathan Hayward             #
# to climb and the        # of these is love."  # Jonathan_Hayward@wheaton.edu #
# strength for climbing." # I Corinthians 13:13 # jhayward@imsa.edu            #
################################################################################
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Relationship of Old and New Testaments
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:06:46 GMT
Organization: Wheaton College, IL

I would not exclude either.

Old Testament: basically a collection of stories explaining how God interacts
	       and wishes to interact with humans (laws, prophesies, teachings,
	       and a little bit of other miscellany thrown in).  Much of it
	       describes how awesome the Word of God is (without ever stating
	       exactly what it is), and at the same time describes many people
	       who have an excellent relation with God in ways that do not
	       _directly_ involve it (this includes accounts in Genesis (and
	       company) of people who lived before God had even started to give
	       a written word).

New Testament: basically a collection of stories explaining how God interacts
	       and wishes to interact with humans (laws, prophesies, teachings,
	       and a little bit of other miscellany thrown in).  Much of it
	       describes how awesome the Word of God is (without ever stating
	       exactly what it is), and at the same time describes many people
	       who have an excellent relation with God in ways that do not
	       _directly_ involve it (this includes accounts of people who
	       lived almost exclusively before God had even started to give the
	       New Testament).

Which one is important?  Both are.  Dismiss either one as lacking consequence
and things start to collapse in a major way (slightly different way for each
one, I am choosing not to elaborate here).

(But which one is more important?)  If you are still asking this question, you
have probably missed the point.  Neither one is _less_ important.

################################################################################
# If you disagree, think I'm missing an important point, or would like me to   #
# elaborate, then by all means send me e-mail.  We probably both have          #
# something to learn from the other.                                           #
################################################################################
# "God, give me mountains # "But the greatest   # Jonathan Hayward             #
# to climb and the        # of these is love."  # Jonathan_Hayward@wheaton.edu #
# strength for climbing." # I Corinthians 13:13 # jhayward@imsa.edu            #
################################################################################
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-Religious Practice
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:00:08 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Sep.30.01.27.51.1992.7171@geneva.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
>
>    For the past few days, I stop entering this newsgroup and I 
>    purposely bounced all my e-mails addresses to me.  I didn't
>    feel like getting into conflict over something I stated.  I
>    also felt that I lost the freedom of using my e-mail because
>    of some unpleasant mail.
>... 
>    In the end, my point is that there must be something besides the
>    Bible that can I refer to in finding the truth.  For example,
>    if the Ark of Noah or whatever you called it could be found.  

Hello, Jack.
I have a question for you. ARE you searching?
The truly gutsy question to ask about the Bible isn't: 
"Is there some place else I can look?" it is:
"If this is true, am I going to do anything about it or not?"
Best Regards, Jack!
PTF
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Relationship of Old and New Testaments
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:33:32 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

Stephen Northcutt writes:

>Hi Nick!  I think its GREAT you are reading the bible!  A caution, since
>you are considering Christianity, you should concentrate more on the 
>new testament, or as I prefer to think, the new covenant.  The greatest
>value of the old testament to a Christian is to help in the understanding
>of the new testament.

Is this true?  I've been thinking about the relationship of OT and NT a lot
over the past few weeks and have come to the exact opposite conclusion.  When
Paul wrote his epistles, they were intended to be supplemental to the OT.  In
essence, they were commentaries on the meaning of OT.  The modern, largely
Gentile, church focusses on the NT to the point of almost excluding the OT.
The result is a church that focusses almost solely on doctrines instead of
on the relationship of God with man, which is the focus of the OT, and of
the relationship of man's relationship with God to man's relationship with
man.  I feel (my opinion, of course) that as Christians, we should be less
concerned with doctrines.  I've said this before on the net:  all the doctrines
of salvation and everything else comes from our relationship with God through
Jesus Christ (eternal life is knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ whom
He sent--John 17:3).  It's all about relationships, not doctrine and creed.

Anyway, enough rambling.  If Paul intended Romans to be a commentary on the
OT teaching of faith equaling righteousness and thus supplemental to the OT,
should not we consider it as such also?  Just a thought...

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The month for the Passover
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:10:02 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic - University of Melbourne

"This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first
month of the year to you." (Exod 12:2)

I am wondering whether any of you out there can help me with this
question.  Please email your answer to me (and post also if you wish):

The question is, it is evident that God shifted the beginning of the
year for the Israelites at this point in time; which month of the (old)
year was this new calender scheme implemented?  If you know the answer
do give me the relevant references.  I think it would be better to give
the answer as being "the seventh month" or something like that, since
that seems to be the popular way of defining dates in the OT.

Thanks a lot

Regards,
Selbyn Liew
==========================================================================
Dept. of EE Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia
EMAIL: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au    PH: +61-3-3447976   FAX: +61-3-3446678
==========================================================================
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Lauren Stratford's _Satan's Underground_
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:46:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <3OCT199211533698@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>This book, published in 1988, was shown to be almost entirely fabrication
>by an investigative report published in 1990 in the Christian magazine
>_Cornerstone_ (copies of this article have circulated the net).  I just
>discovered, however, that the book was reissued in July 1991 by a different
>publisher:  Pelican Publishing Co., a small Louisiana publisher.  This new
>edition features cover blurbs from such people as Hal Lindsey and Johanna
>Michaelson ... and Mike Warnke ... The two-page afterword does
>not address *any* of the _Cornerstone_ criticisms, but alludes to them by
>saying that (paraphrase) "some critics state that this book should not
>have been published unless every single fact within it could be verified
>and documented."  ...  The _Cornerstone_
>criticism thoroughly documented the fact that the book is almost entirely
>a fabrication by Laurel Wilson (the real name of "Lauren Stratford"), a
>very disturbed young woman whose story has changed radically over time.

The publisher's address is Pelican Publishing Co., 1101 Monroe St.,
Gretna, LA 70053.

The three Los Angeles clinical psychologists who wrote the dishonest afterword
are Lyn Laboriel, Catherine Gould, and Vicki Graham Costain.  (The last of
these rings a bell for me--I believe she gave some talks in England on Satanic
Ritual Abuse which preceded that country's flap of bogus ritual abuse claims.
These cases have been reported on (skeptically) in _Fortean Times_.)

(Apologies to anyone who sees this twice--I got one of the crossposted
group names wrong the first time.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

[There's beginning to be a concern about the accuracy of the growing
wave of reports about abuse of various kinds.  Satanic conspiracies
are by no means the only case.  We're seeing increasing stories of
sexual abuse, often in the context of messy divorce proceedings, but
also often as accusations against pastors, day-care centers, etc.
It's probably true that in the past people have been unwilling to
listen to stories of abuse of wives and children when they should have
been.  But we seem to be in danger of a panic in which the most
bizarre tales of satanic or sexual abuse are accepted without
evidence.  I would hope that the Church would find a way to be willing
to listen and take action, but not to be so paniced that we accept
stories without weighing them wisely.  --clh]
From: mls@cbnewsm.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God's Slaves? (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:24:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Oct.3.02.11.09.1992.3357@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:

> anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell) writes:

> |the word "slave" just doesn't carry the right connotation for me. 
> |Slavery sounds like an involuntary relationship, and a destructive one
> |one in which the person enslaved is degraded by his/her service.  

> Well, regardless of our modern discomfort with the term, "Slave" [DOULOS]
> is precisely the term that Paul uses and he uses it repeatedly.

I think one can, just by seeing Paul's application of the term to himself,
show that implications of "degradation" are not intended, and that by and
large our modern scruples (concerned with the social disasters of taking
slaves and of keeping them) are again not part of what Paul has in mind,
except in the sense of being "captured" by Christ.  One might infer from 
his urging Philemon to treat Onesimus "no longer as a slave, but ...as a
brother" that Paul *does* recognize the degradation of human slavery.

However, the central point is the subordination of will -- that is exactly
what *defines* the relationship of slavery: the slave's will must give
way to the master's (and this is surely the source of degradation when
the master is another sinful human being.)  But in this case, Christians
believe that our wills SHOULD be subordinate to God's will -- we pray so
in the words Christ taught us, and we have Christ's own example of this
in Getsemane, "Yet not my will but thine be done."

I would suggest that Paul sees our Master's will as *supplementing* our
own, in its failure -- the good that I will I do not, unless Christ
supplies my want.

The metaphor of slavery is a hard one, in an era of commitment to human
equality and freedom, but maybe it is *safer* now than in an age when
it can be twisted to the damning "benefit" of human masters and the de-
gradation of human slaves.  I am not a human slave, but a divine one.
And this too is metaphor, since we have the Spirit Who says, in us,
"Abba, Father" to a father that does not treat children as slaves.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: robp@landru.network.com (Rob Peglar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Relationship of Old and New Testaments
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:12:21 GMT
Reply-To: robp@landru.network.com
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Just a tidbit I once heard that I have come to regard highly on
the topic of OT & NT:

The Old Testament is meaningless without the New Testament.

The New Testament is unbelievable without the Old Testament.




Peace.

Rob
---
-legal mumbo jumbo follows-
This mail/post only reflects the opinions of the poster (author), 
and in no manner reflects any corporate policy, statement, opinion,
or other expression by Network Systems Corporation.
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christians and Economics
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:13:04 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

Michael Cree writes:
>>dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>>>Is there anybody relating their Christianity to the profession of Economics?
>>>I find that there are some people who refuse to accept the idea that I can
>>>be an economist and a Christian at the same time. I would like to see
>>>writings on this topic.
>
>However, there are a few in the church who have economic/social
>training and who are challenging the government. One, that I have
>personally have meet, is Paul Dalziel, a Catholic who is a lecturer in
>Economics at Lincoln University. He co-edited the book (with Jonathon
>Boston, a Christian political scientist):-
>
>The point is that I am trying to make is that our country is in
>desperate need of such people who have an understanding of
>current economic dogma and of the gospel of Christ and who are
>also prepared to stand up and be prophets to our nation. If the
>Christians in NZ sit down and withdraw into their little clicky
>pockets then the poor and downtrodden of this country are going to be
>screwed of what very little they had in the first place.

Let me suggest you both get in contact with Gary North.  He's an economist
with a decidedly Christian worldview.

He runs the Institute for Christian Ecomonics
            PO Box 8000
            Tyler, TX  75711
            USA

North publishes several newsletters on a varitey of topics including one on
economics called Biblical Economics Today.  He's also written several books
on a variety of subjects including _Honest Money_, _Inherit the Earth_,
_The Pirate Economy_ (a collection of essays on modern economic practices),
_Puritan Economic Experiments_, and _The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the
Ten Commandments_.  ICE also carries many books on economics from other
authors.

--
Tom Albrecht
From: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Administrivia: deluge of postings
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:44:08 GMT

I got 50 postings today.  The number of postings has been edging up
recently, but that's more than I can handle and more than a number of
readers indicate that they can reasonably read.  So I'm being more
selective today than usual.  I've tried to allow enough postings to
give you an idea of the range of views on various subjects.
From: ollis@redbck.stl.dec.com (Stephen Ollis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Sex
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:07:36 GMT
Reply-To: ollis@redbck.stl.dec.com (Stephen Ollis)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

>From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
>
>With regard to talking explicitly and publicly about sex, I agree with
>reservations.  I think the ideal balancing act is to somehow present to
>others the notion that sex is delightful, good, godly, etc. -- and also
>private.  In the past, "private" somehow came to equal "shameful."  That
>needs to change, at least with regard to this issue.  

The youth group my wife & I attend have just had a 4 Saturday nights of
information about sex, aimed at the 17-20 and 21-> age groups.. It was 
interesting and was aimed at clearing up a lot of misconceptions (no pun 
intended) and mis-information. It's amazing at the amount of `knowledge' 
people have acquired about sex, a lot of it wrong.  The main thrusts of the 4
weeks was to reinforce that sex was good, acceptable to God *BUT* only within
the boundary of marriage....

>
>I don't mean that we
>should observe total silence on the topic of sex, but neither do I want to
>hear what a happily married couple discovered in bed last weekend. 
>Occasionally some of my Christian girlfriends (married) have passed along
>some funny thing that happened, or a problem they're experiencing, or some
>sweet thing their husbands did -- but they don't give explicit details,
>and I think they're right not to.  An exception would be, maybe, informal
>counseling from one married person to another.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing how others deal with this balance.
>
>

My wife & I are currently in the throes of getting a young marrieds and 
engageds informal meeting happening say once a month, not so much as a general
forum for problems, but where friendships can be formed (we found almost 60 
people who had sort of drifted out of active church life after they got
married) and where there are answers to questions engageds and young marrieds 
often have.. I've been married for almost 3 years now (and boy I love my wife!)
but there were a few things that I wish I could've asked people about in the 
first 6 months or so... My wife has been amazed at the amount of engaged girls 
who come up to her, their sole goal is to ask an `experienced married young 
person' some question that is weighing them down that they'd feel uncomfortable
talking to a pastor or their parents about. This, I feel, is the only time when
explicit details should be shared.  

Stevo...
--
DIGITAL Telephone Support, Sydney AUSTRALIA   *   Ph: +61 2 5615675 (BH)
Email: ollis@redbck.enet.dec.com            *  *      +61 2 6268533 (AH)
ICBM: 33 43'S 150 52' 15"E                    +       +61 2 5615488 (FAX)
                                             *
   Terra Australis Espirito Santo - The Great Southland of the Holy Spirit
From: cotera@aspen.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:33:30 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

In article <Sep.27.21.15.41.1992.741@athos.rutgers.edu>, saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Friend of Entropy) writes: 
> Bible on slavery:
> 	Exodus 21:1-7
> Bible on Punishment and slavery:
> 	Exodus 21:12-21

You must remember that the slaves of ancient Isreal are not like the slaves of
recent America.  A better word for slave would be servant.  True, the masters
owned the slaves and they were considered property, but as the above verses
poit out, there were certain rules that the masters had to obey.  Often times a
"slave" could achieve positions of great power, e.g. Joseph.

> 	Deuteronomy 21:20-21 [on having a rebellious son stoned --clh]

I'll have to reread this section to be sure what they're talking about, so I
can't really comment on this.

> Bible on Women:
> 	Genesis 3:16

This was Eve's punishment for eating of the forbidden fruit.  Adam had his own
punishment which, I believe, follows this verse.

> 	1 Timothy 2:9-15  [On women]

I think what Timothy is getting at is, don't dress like a slut.  In today's
world people tend to look at marriages as partnerships.  They aren't.  Any
group of people needs a leader otherwise they wouldn't be able to get anything
done.  Man is that leader.  Does that mean that women are to be treated like
trash? Not at all.  A man is supposed to love his wife.  It's like the
Church-Jesus relationship.  The Church is supposed to submit to Jesus.  Please
don't misconstrue this to mean that women are supposed to worship men.

> 	I find these opinions increadibly offensive, and not merely isolated
> parts of the book, but built into the basic ideas i found:  guilt and
> punishment.


The Bible does deal with guilt and punishment; what's so offensive about that? 
It also talks a lot about salvation too.  I'm glad you brought up these points
and I hope I have answered them sufficiently.  
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears almost to be a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick