HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dzeigler@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Zeigler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Baptismal Hair-Splitting (Was Re: And what *is* a Christian?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:46:06 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

Mark Christensen ammended my "Gaius" story as follows:

>Actually, before Gaius disappered, they heard him say, "I seem to recall
>hearing about how Peter was with a group of Gentiles when the Holy Ghost was
>poured out on them upon their belief and they began to speak in tongues,
>much to the amazement of the Christian Jews that were present, perhaps
>not understanding how circumcision made no difference where salvation
>was concerned.  These gentiles, having been saved and filled with the
>Spirit, were then baptized (by immersion of course)."

I dunno, Mark; maybe Gaius told Alex and Billy this, but I tend to doubt it.  A
brand-new 1st Century convert would have been unlikely to think in these
terms.  After all, he would have been blissfully unaware of the theological
disputes that have bitterly divided Christians in the centuries since.  It 
probably would have taken some 20th Century indoctrination for Gaius to have 
even understood Alex's question, let alone refute it as you've suggested.

You may be making some valid points, but they weren't the points I was hoping 
to get across in my little story.  There were two I had in mind:

(1)  Neither Alex nor Billy had any problems accepting Gaius as their brother.
What troubled them was their attempt to explain Gaius' experience in abstract,
doctrinal terms.  There is an irony that Alex and Billy could each accept 
Gaius, but could not accept each other!  No doubt there are some false 
doctrines floating around today.  But my conviction is that * much * of what 
divides us is not the * reality * our doctrines are trying to describe, but 
rather the semantics and artificial systemization contained in our 
descriptions.  And I think that's a shame.

(2)  Our 1st century brothers were men with a deep experience of Christ.  Those
of us who have been like Billy and Alex (I'm the chief of sinners here) have 
had deeper experiences with intellectual abstractions about Christ than with 
Christ himself.  Is Billy right and Alex wrong?  Or is Alex right and Billy 
wrong?  My answer: the truth probably doesn't lie on a spectrum with Alex on 
one end and Billy on the other.  The truth probably lies on a different plane 
altogether.  And poor, naive Gaius seems to be dwelling on that plane!

In Jesus,
Dan
From: louns@cs.washington.edu (Michael Lounsbery)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qumran finding
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:38:45 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:

>Needless to say, these finds, if they pan out, would make mincemeat of
>current thoughts in some circles about the late dating of the Gospels.
>The Catholic Church holds to an early dating, so the finds are most
>welcome...

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  My copy of the Catholic-written "New
Jerome Biblical Commentary," tends toward the widely accepted later dates.
I also don't think the Church itself holds to any date at all, leaving the
issue, which is out of the domain of faith and morals, to those more
specifically qualified.  Although the stance of the Church towards Biblical
scholarship was fairly rigid in the late 1800's, more recent pronouncements
have relaxed this considerably.  (An excellent exposition of this
development also appears in the NJBC.)  An early date is in no way an
article of faith, and I don't think you meant to suggest this.  I just
wanted to clarify.

Regards,

Michael Lounsbery
louns@cs.washington.edu

[Some of the critical theories that involved late dating also involved
claims that the documents had been supplemented with lots of later
views, and thus did not reflect Jesus' actual teaching.  Generally
there is a tendency for people who believe in the accuracy of the NT
to believe in relatively early dates, and visa versa.  --clh]
From: Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage to a Catholic outside a Catholic Church
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:02:34 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan - Surgery Tech Svc

In article <Aug.25.02.10.47.1992.18946@athos.rutgers.edu> Joseph H.
Buehler, jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us writes:
>[I thought the Catholic church recognized marriage between any
>baptized Christians, on the grounds that the ministers of the
>sacrament are the couple themselves.  Am I all wet, or is there a
>specific exception for a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic?  I would
>have thought that the marriage described would be valid but illicit.
>--clh]

My 0.02c understanding:

If a Catholic marries a non-catholic outside of a Catholic church,
and if the couple is married by someone who is not a member of
 Catholic clergy (deacon/priest)
Then the marriage is not a real marriage.

If a Catholic marries a non-catholic in a Catholic church,
and if the couple is married by someone who is a member of
 Catholic clergy (deacon/priest)
Then the marriage is a real marriage.

If two non-Catholics are married in another church by their
minister, 
Then the marriage is a real marriage.

If a Catholic marries a non-catholic outside of a Catholic church,
and if the ceremony is concelebrated by a non-Catholic clergyperson and 
a Catholic clergyperson,
Then the marriage is a real marriage.

If two Catholics are married by a justice of the peace, 
Then the marriage is not a real marriage.
(I don't know if it applies to two non-Catholics)

------
Now, I have another question:

Can a divorced man be ordained to the priesthood?  I once heard of
something like this, but don't recall where.  And does the Catholic
church accept Episcopalian (sp?) priests who are married and then
ordain them as Catholic priests who are married?
------------------------------
Fil Sapienza
Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu
From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: healing statistics
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:30:36 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <Aug.25.02.08.00.1992.18920@athos.rutgers.edu> U16028@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>My mother just died on Friday, August 21, of complications due to cancer.
>
>I prayed.  I prayed.  I begged and pleaded.
>
>And she died.
>
>Now all I can do is wail and gnash my teeth.
>
>Why did he abandon me?
>

First, I'd like to say that I understand your pain.  My mother died in almost
the same way.  Only as a Christian Scientist, she did not even have the benefit
of pain killers.  (I cannot tell you how tempted I was to slip them into her
drink).

But because your mother died does not mean that God abandoned you.  It means
that the answer to your prayer was "no".  Everyone dies.  And I cannot help
but wonder if people didn't die would we value life as much?

Right now you are doing exactly what you need to do.  You are mourning.  Cry,
wail, and gnash your teeth.  Yell at God if it makes you feel better (I could
be wrong, but I think God forgives those of us who yell at Him during our
trials - childbirth being the last time I told Him off).  

But just a the loving parent whose child has screamed "I hate you" upon 
not getting his own way, once you have calmed down you will find God's loving
arms once again around you and comforting you.  And there will come a time
when you can remember your mother without pain and agony.  For this is
a wound that will heal.

The depth of your pain reflects the depth of your love.  God bless you.


-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
From: Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:38:10 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Derek Abbot writes:

>There is a tension between the concepts of who qualifies for salvation
>and the purpose of evangelization.
>
>If salvation is possible without having even heard the name "Jesus"
>(as in the case of an eskimo 3000 years ago) then we ask what is
>the purpose of evangelization and what is the need for doing it
>with any urgency?
>
>However, if we say that salvation is only open to those who are
>exposed to Jesus (in their lifetimes) then what does happen to
>the poor eskimo who lived 3000 years ago or the child born
>today with a severe mental handicap?
>
>Does anyone have the answer to this tension?
>
>[Perhaps there's a bit more than a binary choice here.  That is,
>(1) there may be advantages to knowing the truth other than
>being saved from hell, and (2) it may be possible to be saved
>without knowing the truth, but less likely.  --clh]


---- The bible does say that even the creation testifies to God.  There is
no human born who is not responsible for a belief in God.  To this end, I
would submit that those who have not heard the truth about the Lord Jesus
Christ, and his gospel, will be judged according tothe Laws of Moses. 
These ten laws being basic moral laws, are well known even to the
non-christian.  Case in point, tribal people who have never heard of
Jesus, having their own laws for stealing, mureder, adultery, etc...  It
is widely known that these are basic moral tenants.

The reason it is imperative that we evangelize with an URGENCY is so that
these people, and indeed all people will be judged according to the grace
givenby Jesus Christ.  Without Jesus Christ, all will go to hell.  We
both, I'm sure know that the law was not good enough, or there would have
been no need for Jesus in the first place.  Nevertheless, God will judge
because he is just, and fair.  How he judges will be determined by whether
or not the Lord Jesus resides in ones heart.

This is my interpretation, noone elses.  My opinions are my own.
God Bless,
Steve.Gross

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: defining fundamentalism - query
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:11:47 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Aug.31.02.30.58.1992.25597@athos.rutgers.edu>, Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:
> From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
> Subject: defining fundamentalism - query
> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 02:30:59 GMT+5:00

> On <26 Aug 1992 20:42> thanks for noticin'... --Eeoyore (5:7104/2) said to All 
> :

>  tfn>  There is, in fact, a clear difference between orthodoxy and  
> tfn>fundamentalism.
>  tfn>The latter is historically naive; tends to be restorationist 
>  tfn>inasmuch as
>  tfn>it attempts to restore early new testament Christianity.  
>  tfn>Hence, it is stongly
>  tfn>non-confessional.  Orthodoxy, on the other hand, wishes to 
>  tfn>maintain historical
>  tfn>continuity via creeds (confessions).

> While it is true that Orthodoxy wishes to maintain continuity, it is through 
> far more than creeds. Orthodoxy claims to be a direct continuity of New 
> Testament Christianity because it has maintained "the apostles teaching and 
> fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers" through twenty centuries. 
> It is all these things, and not just creeds, that provide the continuity.

> Steve Hayes

Umm, I think tfn was referring to "orthodoxy" rather than "Orthodoxy".  Of
course, I could be wrong; one usually does not oppose fundamentalism and
orthodoxy in this way.

But of course you are correct.  Also, "Hold fast to the traditions you received
from us, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Th 2:15).

Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.
From: stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:00:37 GMT

REXLEX writes:

>Forgive me if I misinterpret you.  Are you saying that everyone has to be
>baptized to be "born again"?  ...  But when we hold that salvation is
>by grace alone, we can not add "plus baptism."  ...  Baptism does not make 
>one a Christian.  Plenty of hairs are split on this BB, but I think this is 
>an important point to clarify.

As I interpret conversion from a Church of Christ background, I would highly 
recommend reading Daniel Ziegler's post entitled "Baptismal Hair Splitting" 
to get a feel for how both of us can experience the same account of 1st 
century conversion and arrive at different "doctrinal definitions".  I will 
leave it up to you to decide what is truly different between us.  I hold that 
the entire NT declares salvation through faith in the grace of Jesus Christ.
It is also clear to me that this process of salvation/christian/church is one
and the same.  We ask Jesus to save us.  To do that, he must live in us.  In 
living in us, we become part of his body on this earth.  Jesus commands us to
be baptized into him.  I cannot separate this response to Jesus from my 
response in faith to his saving grace.  Salvation IS by grace alone.  We do 
not contribute ONE THING to our own salvation.  But baptism is not something 
"added" to the equation.  Baptism is part of the same response in faith.  
Part of accepting the free gift of eternal life.  There are so many wonderful
"purposes" associated with baptism into our Lord:  forgiveness of sins; 
identification with his death, burial, and resurrection; clothing ourselves 
with him; pledging a good conscience.  But ultimately, I know that my Lord 
asks this of me, and I do it because JESUS IS MY LORD AND JESUS SAVES!!!!

Yours in Him,

Todd Stevens
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: freedom of speech in the Church
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:55:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Aug.16.01.43.48.1992.1311@athos.rutgers.edu> norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak) writes:

[Responding to a speech by the Pope, Richard quotes a very similar
passage in canon law and then goes on to say:]

>The "prophetic" free speech the Pope is recognizing is not the newspaper
>manifesto of dissenting theologians, nor the picket sign of demonstrators
>against Christian morals.  It is in the constructive words of faithful, 
>orthodox Catholics who give the pastors of the Church their ideas on how she 
>can be more effective in her mission of teaching and sanctifying humanity.

I was not aware of that part of canon law (I've only glanced briefly
through parts of it :-( ).  However, and perhaps I am reading more
into the Pope's speech than is really there, but I did get the sense
that he was acknowledging the legitimacy of theological "dissent" where
such "dissent" leads to a deeper understanding of the truth.  (I do
not like the word "dissent" but cannot come up with a better one.
Dissent has a negative connotation and seems to lack a constructive
sense.)

As a touchstone for what I thought the Pope was referring to, consider
the case of the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray.  In the 40's
and 50's he articulated a new theological basis for questions of 
religious freedom, partly in response to anti-Catholicism in America.
However, his works ran counter to 19th and early 20th century 
thinking on this subject (e.g. Quanta Cura, the Syllabus, etc.) and
he was silenced.  (I am not aware of the exact discipline invoked
against him.)  However, his work was immensely influential and 
caused the bishops of the Church to rethink their views.  The net
result was Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae.

I thought the Pope was acknowledging (or at least beginning to acknowledge)
this sort of "counter-current" in the Church as being one means ("charism")
by which the Holy Spirit leads the Church.  But, I could be wrong.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Genetic Engineering info needed.
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:44:04 GMT
Organization: FNAL

In article <Sep.1.22.18.46.1992.23101@athos.rutgers.edu>
s1159377@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (T. Furnell.  FOOEY..) writes:
>Hello all;
>
>We feel that with a subject like genetic engineering there are many
>issues that should be considered, and we are looking for information
>along the following guidelines.
>
>	effects on society
>	moral dilemas
>	history of genetics
>	future potential
>	genetic selection
>	religious implications

I have read several from all different stances.  The one that says the most in
the shortest amount of time is a pamphlet by Francis Schaeffer entitled "Back
to Freedom and Dignity" I'm sure you can see the dig at BF Skinners "Beyond
Freedom and Dignity."  He quotes from genetic engineers from around the world
in it and discusses the implications involved.  

There is also his book, which is not specifically addressed to genetic
engineering, but does give a chapter to it, "How Then Should We Live."

Also there is the book by him and C. Everet Coop about abortion, euthanasia,
infancid, and genetic engineering, but I don't remember the title.  Both this
book and the one mentioned previously have film series and lectures to coincide
with the books.

One the other side of the coin is Jaque Monod (sp?) and Sir Francis Crick who
both address these issues at length.  Also you might look at the writtings of
John Kenneth Galbriath (sp?) and also George Theobold.


>
>[Note that they're asking for an email response.  Most of these 
>subjects would be of dubious relevance to this group.  --clh]
>
oh contrar mon capitan.  Genetic engineering should be discussed at length on
just such a BB.  These are issues of the 90's that will have far reaching
effects for generations to come if the Lord taries so long.  Not the least of
which is the breath-taking manipulative power of anyone who is in charge of it.
The Church needs to be laying the ground work in moral guidelines and
directives BEFORE the snowball gets rolling down the mountain.  An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. 
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens
loved to paint. . . it is conceived and . . .moved, seconded, carried, and
minuted. . .in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men
with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need
to raise their voices."  C.S. Lewis
    Why do you think that our views on such issues are always suspect on such
matters and therefore must be disqualified.   "A socialist would not be
disqualified from expressing views on economic issues or on the morality of
feeding the poor.  A Nazi would not be excluded from political debate, nor
would a sadomaochist, a pedopnile, a spiritualist, or an harmonic convergence
convert.  Their reitht to free expression would be vigourously defended by the
same cultural elite who are so often offended when Christias express their
views." Chuck Colson
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: defining fundamentalism - query
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:51:04 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

In article <Aug.23.21.11.16.1992.22937@athos.rutgers.edu>
ASTRO..FERRONI@cs.hh.ab.com (thanks for noticin'... --Eeoyore) writes:
>
>  There is, in fact, a clear difference between orthodoxy and fundamentalism.
>The latter is historically naive; tends to be restorationist inasmuch as
>it attempts to restore early new testament Christianity.  Hence, it is stongly
>non-confessional.  Orthodoxy, on the other hand, wishes to maintain historical
>continuity via creeds (confessions).
>
>  For all it's emphasis on the fundamentals, fundamentalism is not really
>doctrinally oriented. etc...........

Boy you missed the boat here.  Hello, anybody home!

What's this about not having or maintaining strongly defined doctrinal
statements!  Bull hockey.  I don't know of a single fundamental church that
doesn't have in its constitute at least a partial statement of doctrinal
beliefs.  Are they as elaborate as, say, the Westminster Confession, NOT.  But
then they don't need to be.  If they were, few would understand.  How many
today within the "orthodox" Church know the confessions & catechisms as they
were originally understood.  I doubt that there is even one tenth of one
percent that do.  I'm a Baptist by membership, and yet I have studied many of
the confession and creeds.  I probably know the Westminister better than most
Presbyterians lay people!

All the fundamental Bible Colleges, and Institutes and sem's have very well
defined doctrinal statements.  Write to them, they'll send you a copy.  I
suppose that it is more a product of the form of gov't of fundamental churches
and their lack of a centralized gov't that keeps us, them, from producing such
documents as you refer to.  However, that does not lead to the conclusion that
they don't exist in one form or another. You need to re-think your statements.

Rex

[This is the problem of vagueness in the term "fundamentalism".  The
original definition of fundamentalism was precisely based on an
emphasis on central doctrines.  The people I normally associate it
with take doctrine very seriously.

By the way, you are the last person from whom I would expect to see
the Polish postfix NOT.  Is everybody spending too much time reading
Postscript or what?

--clh]
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:01:16 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <Aug.28.01.24.19.1992.22404@athos.rutgers.edu> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>Conclusion: What separates denominations sometimes is VERY important and
>sometimes not.  Doctrinal stands are important.  Whether you take communion
>at the altar or in your seats isn't.  Hope this helps.
>Mark

An old gentleman at my church - who is also a rather well known writer
and speaker, who has the opportunity to speak at churches of many 
denominations - once said to me that he rather suspected that there
would be a large litter bin outside the pearly gates for us all to
throw our denominational labels into.

As a presbyterian from a mixed catholic, episcopalian and presbyterian
family, married to a baptist of anglican descent, I certainly hope so !

Alison