HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stephen@mont.cs.missouri.edu (Stephen Montgomery-Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hypnosis -- summary of information received
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:06:11 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

I have had personal experience with hypnosis about three years before
becoming a Christian.  At that time I was very unhappy and addicted
to smoking and also addicted to certain occult activities --- viz
the I Ching.

Someone recommended a book to me called self-hypnosis.  So I tried it's
techniques.  It was all very simple --- to have some phrase that
one repeated, a phrase suggesting relaxation, and to then concentrate
on one part of the body until it relaxed.

Often as I did this self hypnosis, I would fall asleep.  The next morning
I would awake.  However, during the sleep I never moved (usually I move
about while I sleep).  Somehow, the sleep didn't seem right, and didn't
seem to rest me.

Then I began to have experiences where I would dream that I woke up.  I
would do a whole bunch of stuff.  Then I would really wake up.  Then`
I would get up and do a whole bunch of stuff.  Then I would really wake up.
etc etc.  After a while, I would realise that I was trapped in this cycle.
I would try to get out.  Eventually, I would.  It was all very unpleasant.

One time, while I was asleep, I had this dream where I levetated above my
bed.  Then I rotated upside down until I was standing next to my bed.
I saw myself in my bed.  Then I awoke.  It was very unpleasant.

When I recounted the story to a friend he said --- ``Gee, you were lucky,
you had an out of body experience.''  I didn't feel so lucky.  (I also
don't think that it was an out of body experience, since certain
details about my bedroom were incorrect in my dream.)

     *          *          *

When I became a Christian, I repented of all this.  One of the easiest
prayers I ever said --- I was sick of it all.  God has truly freed
me of all of my past occultish activity.  (Prophesies made using the
I Ching have not come to pass.)  The blood of Christ breaks the curse.

If you are a Christian, I would definitely recommend you to stay away
from hypnosis, meditiation (except on the word of God), whatever.  Maybe
it isn't as dangerous as I think it is, but why risk it.  Jesus died
on the cross for you, and has given you all that you need.  Use the 
things that the Bible recommends --- the armour of God, pray, fasting, Bible
reading.  Don't treat the gifts from God lightly by using other techniques
that cross your path.

Yours Stephen Montgomery-Smith
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 2 Corinthians
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:06:28 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <Apr.2.00.38.45.1992.8792@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> 484kitchen@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>I had a question on 2 Corinthians 6.  It says that Christians should not be
>yoked with unbelievers.  I am confused as I have several non-Christian friends.
>I think that in order to convert people, we need to be together with other 
>people besides Christians.  Does this passage mean that we shouldn't do non-
>Christian things with them?
>
>                         -Joe A. Kitchen

My understanding of that passage is that Christians should not marry 
nonbelievers and should not enter into business partnerships with them.
As you point out, it doesn't mean don't associate with them - otherwise how 
will they hear about the Savior?

Bill Hamilton
From: jeremy@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Jeremy Gibbons)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 2 Cor 6
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:45:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. University of Auckland

In <Apr.14.03.01.35.1992.13721@dumas.rutgers.edu> ee01th@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Piglet) writes:

>My feeling on the issue that Paul raises in 2Cor6 is that not only should we not
>_marry_ non-christians, but we should not go out with (date) them either.
>My reason for saying this is that I believe that if you are going out with 
>someone, then the _natural_ course for that relationship should be marriage.  
[...]
>However, if we truly believe that a particular relationship 
>could not end in marriage because they are not a Christian, then we should
>seriously examine our motives for continuing (or starting) that relationship.

I understand why a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is in
general more difficult to make work than one between two Christians. I'll
also buy the approach that you don't "go out with" (ie, have the sort of
relationship that you can't have with two different people) someone you
cannot marry, because such a relationship is a precursor to marriage.

Now I have a dilemma. I've recently met a (let's face it, very nice) young
lady, who is not a Christian but has "Christian sympathies"; she was
curious about my faith, and asked some of the right questions. I don't
believe my meeting her is pure chance; there has been one too many
"coincidences" for that. But I don't know *what* the reason for us meeting
is. She has been through some painful experiences in the past few years,
and I can see ---though I daresay she doesn't--- that she needs God to heal
those hurts, so perhaps this is the reason. 

Am I being dishonest with her? I don't know. We have literally "gone out"
to cinemas and restaurants a couple of times, but we're not metaphorically
"going out", because it would be unfair for me to do so when there is an
obstacle to the relationship going any further. On the other hand, I am not
without ulterior motives: if God's plans are what I think (and hope) they
may be, I am not totally averse to the idea of marrying this lady :-) I
figure all I can do at the moment is get to know her better, and hope for
the opportunity to show her something about Jesus Christ.

This has been on my mind for a few weeks, and I don't know what else I can
do, if anything. I like to think I'm doing the right thing, but since what
seems to be the right thing is also what I want to be the right thing, I
can't be sure! Any comments?

Jeremy

*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Jeremy Gibbons <jeremy@cs.aukuni.ac.nz>  CS Dept, Auckland Univ, NZ |
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Coptic Church and Monophysitism
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:11:21 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <Apr.15.04.09.04.1992.4198@dumas.rutgers.edu> tlc20700@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas L. Carney) writes:
>[Several people had indicated an interest to hear more about the
>Coptic church. tlc20700@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas L. Carney) writes:
>>I talked with a friend who is Coptic Orthodox...They use the liturgy of
>>St. Mark and some parts are in Arabic, sometimes in Syriac.  
>--clh]

>I want to correct this...The liturgical language is Coptic, which is 
>related to Greek, and some parts of the liturgy of St. Mark are in Arabic.

Unless I'm mistaken (always possible) Coptic is less closely related to
Greek than English is.  It's an indigenous Egyptian language (which got
pushed out of common use by Arabic more than a millennium ago) in
in the Hamitic branch of the Hamito-Semitic group, related to languages
spoken in North and East Africa.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
From: jevans@wheaton.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Billy Graham carrying message from the Pope
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:32:48 GMT
Organization: Wheaton College

Just one question...in saying that there has been this huge gap
where the Protestant and Catholic churches have been in a state of
disunity, do you mean to blame this on God. Or is this the result of 
human means?   
If you mean to say that it is God who has allowed this to occur, I
would agree but I would not say that God actively promoted this. Surely
reforms needed to take place in Luther's time, but we may now wonder if
this was really worth it over the long run. I'm not at liberty to make
any kind of judgment here since my knowledge of the development of the
Christian church is rather low. And even if I did have this knowledge I
would be hesitant to say that we would or would not be better off without
the Reformation.            
    I think you make a good point in that Protestants and Catholics need
some re-unification. However, I don't think a synthesis of the two 
traditions (with countless denominations) is the answer. I think it would
benefit the work of Christ for both groups to come together to discuss
important religious matters (which happens in academics) and more importantly
joining together to aid in overcoming the social ills plaguing our planet (e.g.
helping the poor, working in the third world, et al...). Already a lot of this
work is being done, but unfortunately it isn't enough. Sorry if I'm going off
on tangents. I would appreciate a clarification of your position, and what you
feel about this...

to aid in overcomming the various social ills plaguing our planet.
A

				 A
=============================================================================
Jonathan 'Jaco' Evans ++++ jevans@wheaton.UUCP ++++ Wheaton College, IL 60187
"...music made by humans in this day and age, hmmm..." -wylde silas tompkin
From: st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: some musings on theodicy
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:59:50 GMT

My thoughts on Charles Hedrick's post on why the sufferings of hell
happen.

I think it is indeed true, as he said, that only those who know God will 
be prepared to live in heaven.  Neglecting whatever other spiritual warfare
may be going on at that time, the first part of heaven, the so-called
millenium referred to in Revelation 20 will be a time of adjustment to
living for the rest of eternity with all the other people who are there.
Even in an environment free from temptation, it will still be a challenge
to learn to cohabit  (example as Paul meets Stephen in heaven, whom he 
had arranged to have stoned).  The only ones who will be happy in heaven 
are those who have accepted the grace of God and allow it to rule their lives.

At the final time of judgment, the full glory and love of God will be seen 
by all.  To those who have accepted it, it will be a most wonderful sight.
To those who have rejected it, there can be no worse torture.  Whether
the "fire that comes down from God out of heaven and devours them" is 
actually originated by God or by themselves as they turn on each other in 
frustration I do not know.  But those found outside the city who have
rejected God's love will prefer destruction to heaven, and acknowledge that
God's judgment was fair.

Steve Timm
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: some musings on theodicy
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:48:00 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <Apr.14.03.02.51.1992.13757@dumas.rutgers.edu>
cabrera@ricevm1.rice.edu (glenn) writes:
>
> What about the thief of Golgotha who was saved on the very day he was
> executed?
>
I believe Jesus referred to the "world of spirits".  If there are
any Greek/Hebrew experts please correct me if I'm wrong.  This
world has quite a range from next to God to next to Satan.
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger in a strange land,
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 | Roger Holfeltz   -  The truth can be made up,       |
 |                     if you know how                 |
 |                                                     |
 |  My mind IS a terrible, terrible thing              |
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably     |
 |             not your's either!                      |
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
From: jayne@mma.beltrix.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Poverty
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:31:23 GMT
Organization: Martin McCubbin & Associates Ltd.

In article <Apr.6.22.54.47.1992.13036@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>
conan@wheatena.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes:
 
> This post is to (belatedly) follow up on two posts by Robert
> Brown and Phil Weingart on Christian poverty. 
 
I'm glad you reopened this thread.  I had wanted to contribute but did 
not have time earlier.  I would like to recommend the book Celebration 
of Discipline by Richard Foster (Harper and Row, 1978) for those 
interested in this topic.  The chapter on The Discipline of Simplicity 
is highly relevant to the discussion.  Here is a quote which gives the 
author's premise:
 
    The Christian Discipline of simplicity is an inward reality
    that results in an outward life-style.  Both the inward and 
    outward aspects of simplicity are essential.  We deceive 
    ourselves if we believe we can posess the inward reality
    without its having a profound effect on how we live.  To 
    attempt to arrange an outward life-style of simplicity without
    the inward reality leads to deadly legalism. (p 69)
 
One thing I don't like about this chapter is the author's use of the 
word `ascetism'.  To him this word denotes the dualistic attitude which 
treats matter as evil and cannot enjoy the goodness of God's creation.
I (like David) do not use the word ascetism with this meaning.  To me it 
means self-denial, a quality I believe essential for Christian growth 
and closely linked to simplicity (poverty).
 
Many other topics related to spiritual growth are discussed in the book, 
drawing on the Bible and devotional classics as sources.  It is easy to 
read, as well as being deep, a rare combination.  I highly recommend it.
 
************************************************************
*  Jayne Kulikauskas  (jayne@mma.beltrix.guild.org)        *
*    ____________________________________________          *
*  disclaimer-I don't really work for mma; my husband does *
*             Even he doesn't always agree with me.        *
************************************************************
\s
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Election, Reprobation and in Between
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:31:45 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering


 
It is a well known fact, and I do not keep it a secret that
I am an un-orthodox thinker. But in as much as I wish to
learn all I can before I lay this body down to rest, I would
like to know what you (of the various religions) believe
about the doctrine of election, reprobation and the worlds
in between.
 
Exactly, what is your understanding of these, how do you
achieve these things?
 
----------- Definitions as per E-mail request ----------------
 
For "Election", use 2 Peter 2:3-11 as text,
For "Reprobation", use Hebrews 6:4-6;10:26-9 as text, and
use Paul's mention of the 3 degrees of glory in his Corinthians
letter for the "worlds in between".
 
Sorry about that
 
A poor wayfaring stranger in a strange land,
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 | Roger Holfeltz   -  The truth can be made up,       |
 |                     if you know how                 |
 |                                                     |
 |  My mind IS a terrible, terrible thing              |
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably     |
 |             not your's either!                      |
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dislike of Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:00:06 GMT
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs

In article <Apr.14.03.18.23.1992.14067@dumas.rutgers.edu>,
skinner@sp60.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) says:
>
>...  Also, I find their potential to be
>turned to tools of evil to be great, at least as great as that of
>historical Christianity (which I will continue to distinguish from
>true Christianity).

This can pose a problem. Since the religion was started by god himself
(or so we're told), god wanted it to happen. Since he is omniscient
(or so we're told), god knew what would become of it--all of the atrocities
that would be done in the name of god. God allowed it to happen, given
that he knew the consequences; therefore, he wanted all of the evil
perpetrated by christians to happen. Separating the history from Xianity
is simply an attempt by present day christians to hide from what their
predecessors did; it is also unjustified.

>
>Gregg Skinner
>g-skinner@uiuc.edu    |    "Patriotism is slavery."  (Count Leo Tolstoy)

Martin Schulte
From: mfv23060@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Maurice F. Vallejo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Seeking Vocation
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:53:30 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Hi,   I'm in collegue right now - about to graduate- and interested
in a Catholic vocation.  Is there a place/organization I can talk
to about this for advice and help??
I understand that I might need to join some type of seminary,
but I've only heard of Protestant seminaries (not that they are bad, 
but I am Catholic).  Is there a "Catholic" seminary?
Also, I know that they cost money - being fresh out of collegue in a few
months -  I wouldn't be able to afford it.  Does the Church help
people who are interested in the priesthood (for example) financially?


Any advice would help.
God Bless:  Maurice
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: 'Positive' Christianity, etc.
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:55:28 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

In reference to the thread on churches that may de-emphasize the side
of Christianity that includes suffering, death, and the bloody aspects
of the Passion:  some posters point out the importance of emphasizing the
positive and uplifting and joyful aspects of Christianity, as some unchurched
find the other aspects unpalatable.  Others seem to think this is not 
acceptable.  My 2 cents: We have every reason to emphasize the joyful and
graceful and wonderful riches we have in our faith.  These spiritual trea-
sures are rare in a depraved and decaying world.  However, while the 
stark truths of Christ's death and suffering and our own inevitable suffering
in this life may be a "turn-off" to some people, there are others who will
perhaps accept Christianity as authentic because it's not afraid to deal
with reality; because it confronts the problems of suffering; and because
it depicts a Savior who was willing and able to share in human woe to the
ultimate degree of being unjustly tortured to death.  There's plenty of
other "cheerful" religions around if feeling good is the key.  Our joy is
the greater because it faces this woe unflinchingly and emerges triumphant
in the grace of God.

-- 
paul marxhausen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "when i was six I could paint like
university of nebraska - lincoln ~~~~~~~~~~ raphael - it has taken me my entire
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ life to learn to paint like a child."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Pablo Picasso
From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and religion
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:38:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: dumas.Apr.8.04.38.31.1992.28211
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <Apr.5.04.05.59.1992.8954@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> In article <Mar.7.20.28.09.1992.16737@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>,
> swansond@cube05.ccs.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson) writes:
>> 
>> In article <Mar.4.01.37.26.1992.10662@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> judy@locus.com
> (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>> >I was a geology minor in college.  And I remember during the study of
>> >invertebrate paleontology I had a feeling that God had created all this
>> >evidence of evolution and geological time periods just to keep mankind
>> >entertained.  I kept seeing this vision of our creator thinking up new
>> >clues to plant in geological digs.  
>> >[...]

This is really saying that God is untruthful and has arranged the creation
in such a way as to decieve the honest inquirer. It is not a vision
of God that I share with whoever posted it.
 
>> Okay, I'll bet this is a real novel idea, but is it possible that the
>> "force" we call evolution is something that was set in motion during
>> the Creation? Or God's continuous direct manipulation to suit His plans?
>> If I sound like a real kook here, I apologize!
> 
> The major problem with this hypothesis is that then we allow God to
> just be a side-player while the species continue to evolve. Thus
> God is not the ultimate creator, instead a starter. Some Christians
> think that these minor steps allowing God not to be the ultimate
> creator will lead to the final stage where there is no Creator.
> 
[snip]
 
:-) on

Perhaps God is like certain Apple Programmers who post to s.r.c and just
loves tinkering with the (genetic) code, issuing bug-fixes (pun),
enjoys bringing out new spieces and adding new features to existing
spieces. All the time He might be saying ``Behold it is very good.'' 

:-) off

> Regards,
> Kent Sandvik
-- 
                                                                      ___
Bill Rea                                                             (o o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre | E-Mail     b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury           | or       cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand          | Phone +64 3 642-331 Fax +64 3 642-332 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: End times near?
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:02:12 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Without even touching on any of the events and arguments in this thread, I'd
just like to briefly remind folks of the Great Disappointment of 1844, out
of which the Seventh Day Adventist and other religious movements sprang.
Many folks may be aware of the preachings of William Miller, based on Biblical
prophecy in Daniel and elsewhere, pointing to the close of the age in 1843-44.
What is really remarkable about the history of this time is that Miller was
not alone: a great many of finest and best Biblical scholars and theologians
of the day were in agreement with the tenets of the End Time scenario based
on Daniel's "week of years"; not only that, but these speculations were not
reserved for theological discussion only.  They were the subject of front page
articles in the secular press.  In some respects this time outstripped our own
in the unanimity of opinion regarding the close of the age.  The subsequent
"Great Disappointment" was just that, and it wreaked havoc with the faith of
many.

Just a cautionary note, I guess.  I have no problem personally accepting that
we might be witnessing events leading directly up to the Return, but I hold
firmly that that Return can be TODAY, before the sun sets.  
-- 
paul marxhausen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "when i was six I could paint like
university of nebraska - lincoln ~~~~~~~~~~ raphael - it has taken me my entire
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ life to learn to paint like a child."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Pablo Picasso