HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:48:11 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Aug.14.05.12.57.1992.651@athos.rutgers.edu>
norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak) writes: 

>A couple of weeks ago the PBS series "Columbus and the Age of
>Discovery" mentioned a 16th-century papal document teaching that
>Indians were human beings >with souls, and forbidding their
>enslavement by Spanish conquistadors.  It wasn't obeyed quickly, but
>?the efforts of crusading priests like the Dominican friar las Casas
>brought about greater justice for the native peoples.  Can a
>net.historian add to this?

L'Osservatore Romano, in the July 29 issue, has a brief historical
article on opposition to the slave trade.  It doesn't mention this
document, but instead focuses on the efforts of several 17th
century Franciscans which led to a letter from Propaganda Fide
containing instructions against the slave trade.  Unfortunately,
the article provides no references and focuses so closely on details
that the overall picture is unclear.

Can anybody do better?

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: g9218955@cs.uow.edu.au (James Mathew)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: church 2000 ?
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:46:26 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia

Dear friends,

	I would like to know more information about CHURCH 2000 scheme.

Please e-mail to me..

Thanking You in advance,

James 

e-mail : g9218955@cs.uow.edu.au
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Healing Statistics
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:22:09 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Aug.18.23.55.01.1992.13250@athos.rutgers.edu> jkk@aiai.ed.ac.uk (John Kingston) writes:

>Some people suggest, or seem to suggest, that the problem is lack of faith on
>the part of the person being prayed for. This is ***NOT*** a sufficient
>explanation: 
>
>- Jesus only ever criticised those doing the praying for their lack of faith
>(the boy with the demon, Luke 9)
>
>- I know of cases where people who apparently had no faith were healed
>   - a 6-month old baby
>   - a man who didn't know he was being prayed for
>
>However, having faith does seem to help in the healing process. Jesus himself
>told  the woman with the issue of blood that her faith had made her well. The
>best short answer to the question, "Is it necessary to have faith in order to
>be healed?" is "No, but it helps".

Intersting post.  
Faith on the part of the person doing the praying may be a very important
factor.  Jesus said that "whatever ye asked in prayer, believing, ye" would
recieve.  He repeatedly promised His disciples that their prayers would
be answered if they believed.  

Also, I think it is Matthew 17 that Jesus told the disciples that they
could not cast out a certain demon in a boy because of their lack of
faith.  James 5 says that when the elders annoint the sick that _the
prayer of faith_ will save the sick.  Faith on the part of the one
doing the praying is very important.

But so is faith on the part of the one being healed can also be important.
Jesus told many people "according to your faith be it unto you" or words
to that effect.  Also, in Acts, Paul told a man to rise and be healed in
the name of Jesus when he saw that the man had the necesarry faith.

John Wimber thinks that faith is very important.  I saw an interview with
him on TBN.  He told a story about a man who had a problem with his knee.
He said that he was exhausted and did not have the faith to pray for this
man and see him healed.  He looked at the man, and the man did not seem
to believe either.  But the man had his son with him, and he looked at
the child and could see faith in the child's faith.  He told the
son to believe God with him, and then he prayed for the man's leg.
It popped loudly and it was healed.  

Link Hudson.
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:12:59 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <Aug.11.01.57.32.1992.10396@aramis.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>In particular, Christians of all flavors tolerated slavery for many centuries;
>John Paul II recently apologised for the RCC's participation in the slave
>trade.  But while it was going on, I can't think of anybody who spoke out
>against it.  It seems that, at least through silence (and possibly actively),
>"all the bishops" were collectively teaching that dealing in lives as property
>was morally acceptable for Christians.

A couple of weeks ago the PBS series "Columbus and the Age of Discovery"
mentioned a 16th-century papal document teaching that Indians were human beings
with souls, and forbidding their enslavement by Spanish conquistadors.  
It wasn't obeyed quickly, but the efforts of crusading priests like the 
Dominican friar las Casas brought about greater justice for the native peoples.

Can a net.historian add to this?
---
Richard Chonak, sysmgr                                    office: newz@wit.edu
Wentworth Institute of Technology             sometimes: norris@athena.mit.edu
I have very exclusive and nuanced opinions.  License info available on request.
From: drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Keith Rice)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Opinions Qualifications for Deacon
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:28:39 GMT
Organization: University of North Texas

In <Aug.14.02.29.32.1992.27609@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) writes:

[some deleted]

>The other evening, my wife noted that a deacon must "manage his
>children" well and commented that this would make a man with only
>one child ineligible.  I'm not sure that this is what Paul had in
>mind.

>In addition, the qualifications for elders in I Timothy does not
>mention that he had to have believing children, the one in Titus
>does.  Since they appointed elders at different places, could it
>be that Timothy might have appointed men that Titus would not have?

I do not believe that Paul is trying to say that deacons are required
to have two or more children.  What I believe is being stated here is
that the deacon must be the one in authority in his household.  This
is the same requirement for bishops stated earlier in I Timothy 3:4-5.

	"He [the bishop] must manage his family well and see that his
	children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not
	know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of
	God's church?)" -- I Tim. 3:4-5 (NIV)

--
Keith
drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Deacon Duties (was: Opinions Qualifications for Deacon)
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:24:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

[Robert O'Barr asked what the duties of a deacon were.  Mark Wuest said:
>Many commentaries note that the Greek word (diakonos) that is
>transliterated deacon is the same word that is elsewhere translated
>"minister' and other places "servant".  My feeling is that, though
>it *is* a "position", it is less a "position" than an honor to someone
>who is probably already being a servant.
--clh]

Acts chapter 6 clearly indicates why the office of deacon was established.
The apostles could not administer the church and also spread the good
news of the gospel since the administration was taking so much time.
Thus, they would devote themselves to teaching the Word and appoint
seven men to be deacons (servants) to carry the administration of the
local church.
From: cole@maverick ( Cole Keirsey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: You've GOTTA be kidding...
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:51:28 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

In article <Aug.12.03.27.56.1992.25501@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:
> ...What do
>we gain by listening to the deceived "liberal Christians" out there explain
>their latest and greatest infatuations with sexual promiscuity?
>						Pete

Why don't we prevent the decieved from broadcasting their garbage on the
internet?  Maybe Pete can take up the job.  And why limit the purifying 
influence of conservatism to this news group?  It could be applied to all 
writing and public speech.  Then we could have a real conservative,
fundamentalist society.  Like Iran.  Yeah, I've got to be kidding.

If the conservative Christians in the audience don't like this
characterization, maybe they will consider applying the golden 
rule before insulting liberal Christians. If there are Christians out
there who advocate multiple partner "marriages," they certainly aren't
representative of liberal Christians.

Nothing personal against Pete.  I agree that sexual promiscuity isn't
acceptable for Christians.  But, to "call a spade a spade," in Pete's
words, his article started to sound like something from the pages of The
Handmaid's Tale.

cck

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
C. C. Keirsey                 | "Verbosity leads to unclear,  
US WEST Advanced Technologies |  inarticulate things." 
Boulder, Colorado             |                       -- Dan Quayle
From: John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:30:12 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center

In article <Aug.11.02.10.12.1992.11991@aramis.rutgers.edu>
ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:

[the original writer, among a number of points writes that plenty of Christians
did not believe in inerrancy to which Farrell responds: 

>Third - "Plenty of Christians" mentioned above. I don't know of any of
>the great believers of history who have disbelieved in the accuracy 
>and integrity of scripture. Who are these "plenty"? Paul accepted it;
>Augustine accepted it; Polycarp, Eusebius, Luther, Calvin, Wesley and
>DL Moody accepted it, and all of our best-known Christian leaders today
>accept it, such as Pastor Yonge Cho in Korea (in charge of the largest
>Christian congregation in the world; over a quarter million members
>last time I checked), Billy Graham, Dr. James Dobson, Kenneth Copeland,
>Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, D. James Kennedy, and, of course, the Pope.
>The "plenty" to whom you refer sounds like a rather imaginary lot or else
>a group of people you'd do well not to listen to.


The easiest one to debunk here is that Paul accepted the inerrancy of the
Bible.  While he may have had access to Mark, and wrote several of the letters
attributed to him, he did not have or know of a set of scriptures called the
Bible.  And I doubt that he thought that his own letters were inerrant.

Luther was outspoken in his belief that the letter of James was inauthentic.

All of the reformation leaders rejected the Aprocraphyal Books of the Catholic
Bible.

The Pope most assuredly does not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible instead
claiming that interpretation by the church is necessary for understanding.  Of
course he has the power of being able to interpret infallibly.

Other great Christian leaders disagree with inerrancy.  Tillich, Norman Vincent
Peale, Bob Schuyler, James Luther Adams, Rawls, Willimon, etc.
From: tvh@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (HARRISON, TONY V)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: resurrection question
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:54:47 GMT


	Just a quick question...Once we die do we go straight to heaven in a 
new spiritual body, or do we remain in the earth until the Lord comes again?
Obviously Moses appeared to Peter, etc., The rich man and Lazarus, upon death,
were in hell and heaven, respectively.  Any verses of assurance in either 
case?  Thanks in advance.
			Tony H.

[I'm sure contributors will respond.  I'm afraid however that you're
going to get responses in both directions.  This is one of the classic
unsettled points.  One of the difficulties in settling things is that
time references may not be as clear as they look.  (1) From the point
of view of the person, he's not going to be conscious of being dead,
so however long it is, it's going to seem immedate to him.  (2) It's
not entirely clear to me that God or the folks who are with him
experience time in the same linear fashion that we do.  These things
make me a bit sceptical about some of the arguments I've seen.  --clh]
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:23:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo)
>I have always believed that a Christian is a person who has taken Jesus as
>his personal saviour.
>--
>When I proposed this definition, I was informed that 1) it was a
>protestant-only definition - I'd like to hear the opinions of the Catholics
>in the audience on that,

Well, ok, what is the role of the word "personal" in this? Why
not "a Christian is a person who has taken Jesus as his saviour"?
I read "personal" as a deliberate snub to those who think
Jesus' saving role is accomplished through the Church, i.e.
Catholics. It is saying that there is no need for the Church -
being saved is purely a matter between the individual and Jesus.

>I *know* that the definition I gave is trite and oversimplified; that there
>is more to a Christian's *walk* than a decision to accept Jesus and believe
>in him. I don't want to get into the ramifications - I want some reassurance
>that the definition I gave above is the *starting* point of Christian
>faith - any Christian's faith.
 ...
>As extra credit, I'd be curious to hear what people here mean by "accept"
>Jesus and "believe on" Jesus, since these terms are in danger of becoming
>buzzwords without content.

Exactly, that is why the Creeds of the Church are considerably
more detailed. They are intended to be precise definitions of
what must be believed to be a Christian, and they were
considered so important that there were large scale conflicts
over what appear to be fairly trivial matters.

>[The Presbyterian Church (USA) -- which is hardly evangelical/fundamentalist
>accepts into membership anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord
>and Savior, and trust in him.  I think that's substantially the same
>as your proposed definition.  --clh]

Yes, but what is meant by this? It would seem to include
virtually every Christian heresy there ever was, from "Jesus
was just a good man who was taken up to heaven" to "Jesus was
an incarnation of God, so was Buddha, Krishna, etc. etc., add
you favourite New Age hero(in)es". I would expect at least some
fairly precise definition of the Trinity.

Matthew Huntbach

[I agree that there's some interpretation.  I'm pretty sure most
sessions would say that Lord includes involves exclusive allegiance.
So I doubt we would accept people who consider Jesus one of several
saviors or avatars.  However I would also say that it does not require
acknowledgement of specific theological formula, so we would not
require understanding of the Trinity.  We have stronger doctrinal
criteria for church officers.  --clh]
From: carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Episcopal pre-nuptual document?
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:06:36 GMT
Reply-To: carpenter@mgi.com

nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham) writes:
> 
>      I'm reading the book _If_You_Marry_Outside_Your_Faith_, by James Pike,
> and I ran across a reference by the author to "the promise which the
> Episcopal Church requires a prospective couple to sign before marriage".
> I hadn't heard about such a document before.

My wife and I are both Episcopalian:  me from the cradle, she from about
a year before our marriage.  We were counseled by our parish priest,
obviously also an Episcopalian.  We signed no such document, and I am not
aware of any such thing.  In fact, our priest made some very strong anti-
pre-nuptial agreement statements during counseling, with which I agree:
Marriage is not something you enter into with a planned escape route.
============================================================================
"A fool, a tool, a pool -- loopa loota loofa!"
============================================================================
Dave Carpenter                                       Voice:  +1 612 851 6142
Management Graphics                                    FAX:  +1 612 851 6159
1401 E. 79th St.                        Internet:   carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com
Bloomington, MN   55425 USA
From: cw1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chi-Tai (Frank) Wu)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Prove it to me! New question!
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:24:53 GMT

Hello,

    Here are just a few verses to show God's absolute demand
for total allegiance to Him

    If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
    and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,
    he cannot be my disciple.
    And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot 
    be my disciple.       (Luke 14:26-27)

Other verses:  Luke 18:18-30, Matthew ch. 5 - 7

    After you read these verses, I hope you can sense the hardside of
the Gospel.

    According to the Christian faith, man was created to worship his
creator.  But because of Adam's fall, man has since redirected his
worship to himself and/or other created things.  It is hard to worship
Christian God.  And many reject the Christian God when they see the 
cost.  I hope you will be one of the few.

    Read the Bible and ask God to open your heart.  Consider seriously
who Jesus is and what he asks of his people.  A Christian is one who
*is willing* to submit his or her all to God.  A Christian is also one
who gains peace with his creator, love from an almighty Father, and
eternal life so that we can worship Him forever.

peace,
fRaNk
From: KEEGSTRA@zwicky.gsfc.nasa.gov (Phil Keegstra, STX/COBE at CDAC, 513-7737)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bible Translations (LXX and "corrected" KJV)
Date: 17 Aug 92 06:57:40 GMT

-> From: 751kaiser@gw.wmich.edu
-> Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
-> Subject: LXX      the SEPTUAGINT (in english)
-> Message-ID: <Aug.16.01.56.17.1992.1479@athos.rutgers.edu>
-> Date: 16 Aug 92 05:56:18 GMT
-> Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
-> Organization: Western Michigan University
-> Lines: 46
-> Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

-> HELLO!!!!!!!

-> this posting need only concern those familar on this book.

-> I'm looking for an English version of the Septuagint or otherwise known as...

-> LXX

-> I've got the original Greek but I'm not a greek scholar (or novice anyway)

   I just noticed exactly such a thing on a CD-ROM available at $195 from
   the 1992-3 American Bible Society catalog.  The listing is for
   "English Translation of the Septuagint - Branton Translation".
   I have not seen this translation offered for sale in hardcopy form,
   so it may be out of print, but a particularly well-stocked library
   (e.g. Calvin College or U. Chicago) would almost certainly have it.

   It should be pointed out that, as I understand it, whereas the Torah
   in the Septuagint is a fairly close translation, in many of the prophets
   the translation is quite free, so much so that in many cases the Septuagint
   versification is very different from that of the Hebrew.

-> livelongandprosper						godbless

-> matthew							galileo

-------

-> From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
-> Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
-> Subject: Differing translations of the bible sought
-> Message-ID: <Aug.16.00.05.51.1992.22822@athos.rutgers.edu>
-> Date: 16 Aug 92 04:05:52 GMT

-> - The King James Version with the mistakes removed - BUT WITH 
-> 		THE LANGUAGE OTHERWISE INTACT. ie a modified Wycliffe.

   The only thing along those lines I am familiar with is the NKJV, which
   has indeed modified the language where it was thought archaic or
   grammatically obscure.  Note also that as is demonstrated in another
   current thread, the identification of the "mistakes" which may be
   in the KJV is itself not free from controversy.

-------

   Phil Keegstra                               COBECL::KEEGSTRA
   Hughes STX Corp.                            KEEGSTRA@CSDR2.GSFC.NASA.GOV
   NASA/GSFC COBE Project

   I am not authorized to represent either NASA or Hughes STX.
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bacon's "Cross Clauses"
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:18:09 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

In article <Aug.20.01.55.19.1992.20405@athos.rutgers.edu>
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>               BACON'S "CROSS  CLAUSES"
>                     by Ken Miner
>
>     (1) Those who are not for us are against us.
>     (2) Those who are not against us are for us.
>

Paul talked about those who were preaching the Gospel while he was in prison
simply because they wanted to cause him further hardship.  But he didn't care,
as long as the Gospel was being preached!  So in this regard, even those who
are against are for us.  

Look at Job.  Though things and friends were against him, actually everything
was for him in that his faith was revealed.  This is the old oriental theatre
at it's best.

However, we could also look at this from the vivid picture in Rev.  Those who
are neither for or against are graphically portrayed as to being as vomit to
God.  


Bumper Sticker Reads"

I'm a fool for Christ, who's fool are you?

Rex
From: wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy (was Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2))
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:34:54 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Mike" == Mike Martin <aardvark@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

Mike> In <Aug.18.02.19.13.1992.27210@aramis.rutgers.edu> David Wagner
Mike> writes;

Mike>  Peter is the foundation stone
Mike> Jesus laid to build His Church. The REASON Peter was chosen as
Mike> the corner stone was because of his profession of faith, not
Mike> that his profession of faith was the cornerstone. Not to dimish
Mike> the importance of faith in the slightest, but the Church, the
Mike> Body of Christ, is composed of people, not statements, nor for
Mike> that matter, faith.

Paul seems to take a different view in Ephesians 2:19-22:

"Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow
citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 
**built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with 
Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.**  In him the
whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy
templein the Lord.  And in him you too are being built together
to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

It sends a shiver down my spine to see you describe Peter as the
cornerstone of the church, giving Peter the honor that belongs
to Christ.

David H. Wagner		"Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word;
a confessional 		Curb those who fain by craft and sword
Lutheran		Would wrest the Kingdom from Thy Son
			And set at naught all He hath done."
			--Martin Luther, "Erhalt un, Herr, bei
			  deinem Wort", v. 1, 1541.