HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkk@aiai.ed.ac.uk (John Kingston)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Post-millenialism - Correction (was Re: Hal Lindsay)
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:49:25 GMT
Reply-To: jkk@aiai.ed.ac.uk (John Kingston)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <Jan.8.00.19.26.1993.2341@farside.rutgers.edu> I wrote:

>
>There are generally four viewpoints held by Christians about what will happen
>at the 2nd coming: 
>
>1) Pre-millenialism - all Christians will be taken up to heaven before the
>"thousand years of tribulation" predicted in the book of Revelation. Lindsey's
>books take this viewpoint, and proceed to instantiate other prophecies in
>Revelation and elsewhere with current world events, to suggest that the 2nd
>coming is very close. As far as I understand, pre-millenialism is less widely
>believed now than it used to be, and Lindsey's writings are not considered
>valid by anyone who has seriously studied the subject. 
>

>2) Post-millenialism - all Christians will be taken up to heaven after
>enduring the 1000 years of tribulation
>
>3) Amillenialism - there won't be a literal "thousand years of tribulation"
>


When I posted my summary of different views on the end times, I received
criticism of my (short) summary of postmillenialism. OK, I was wrong, and this
posting attempts to clear up some of the confusion.

Firstly, the book of Revelation(s) doesn't actually talk about a thousand
years of tribulation (thank goodness :-)). Instead, it appears to predict 3.5
years of tribulation followed by 1000 years of God ruling on earth (see
Revelation 12, 20, and a commentary for more details). 

Secondly, (most) postmillenialists believe that the years of tribulation *have
already happened*, and the 1000 years of God's rule are either happening now
or are about to happen. This is a fundamental belief in Christian
Reconstructionism, as pointed out in a separate thread. This invalidates my
statement about postmillenialists' defensive view of the world.

Mea culpa

JK


John Kingston,                               | 
Knowledge Engineering Methods Group,         | The heart of the problem
AIAI, University of Edinburgh                | is the problem of the heart
E-mail jkk@aiai.ed.ac.uk, phone 031-650 2736 |
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:08:52 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

I just saw part of Pat Robertson's TV show "The 700 Club" for the
first time today while I was home on my lunch break, and I'll admit,
it frightened me.  I was never really aware of what large Christian
organizations are doing these days.

Robertson kept talking about how society is moving farther and farther
away from God, and how this nation is falling into such sinful
activities as drug use, murder, abortion, homosexuality and sodomy,
and materialism as a result.  He urged his audience to rally together
and fight the anti-Christian oppression.  He spoke highly of the fight
to put official prayer back into schools, and he encouraged the
pro-life crowd to keep striving for their goal, and he even did an
interview with one of the lawyers from a Christian legal firm which is
working to defend the ability of students to distribute pro-life
pamphlets in schools.  Throughout the whole time I watched him,
Robertson kept talking about his desire to return America to
traditional family values, despite his opposition (which, it could be
inferred from his words, is quite morally depraved).

I'm worried.  What am I to do if much of this comes to pass?  I don't
want my children to be singled out by sitting quietly during a school
prayer, I don't want my tax money to be spent on a public nativity
scene, I don't want Jehovah's Witnesses to come by my door (as they
did twice right after Christmas).  I just want to be left alone, and
not have well-meaning people try to bring the word of Jesus to me, and
not have a well-meaning government decide what's morally best for me.
I have my own moral values which I'm perfectly happy to keep to
myself.  Heck, I won't even complain about the "In God We Trust" on
all my money, if it would just convince the Christians to keep their
religion out of my life.

I'm overreacting, I know, but just seeing Pat Robertson voicing a lot
of arguments so one-sided I'm surprised they don't fall over is bad
enough -- seeing him on TV, with the phones around him ringing off the
hook with people pledging money to support him, really got to me.  How
_dare_ he try to pass _himself_ off as the oppressed one!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Witnessing to Jews: Isa. Trail
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:48:48 GMT

In article <Dec.24.02.01.43.1992.15494@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> In article <Dec.22.03.09.56.1992.12942@geneva.rutgers.edu> 
|> REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
|> >the First Covenant (never call it the old covenant & don't call Jesus "Christ,"
|> >rather Jeshua or Messiah). 
|> 
|> Yes, we must deceive lest they reject it.  Let's wrap it up in a Jewish
|> package so they don't know what they're buying.  

I see no deception here!  So it is better to speak to people in words
they understand!  What is the problem with that!  (Remember "Christ"
is just Anglicized Greek for "messiah", and "Jesus" is just Anglicized
Latinized Greek for "Yeshua", so all that is being recommended here is
to use the Jewish words rather than our goyish alterations).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:33:32 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes:

>The Vatican recently ruled that a husband hemophiliac who had contracted 
>the HIV virus through bad blood must not use a condom.   

>Speaking of family values!   

Doesn't it also hold that if he is likely to infect her they should
refrain from sex anyway?  If they have no sex they are guilty of no sin.
If they have unprotected sex he is guilty of some kind of manslaughter or
endangerment I suppose, though I don't know if we have a word for what she
might be guilty of (recklessness?).  And if they do have sex with a condom
they are guilty of frustrating the natural purpose of sex. 

Its not easy for anyone to avoid sin, but just because something is
difficult is no reason not to try surely. Perhaps the couple could ask the
Holy Spirit to give them the strength to love each other without genitality.

-ricko

[As I commented before, I fear we don't have enough information on
exactly what was decided and why to be sure what's going on.
--clh]
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:46:28 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Jan.7.01.13.41.1993.6018@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris) writes:
>Second, while the Law says we shall not murder, it does not prohibit
>all killing (i.e. self-defense, executions).  God says that anyone who
>murders shall lose his own life.  We are expected to exact such punishments
>on those who are guilty.  To attempt to dodge this distasteful task
>with claims that it's wrong to take a life, to judge, is actually an
>avoidance of our own responsibility to follow God's commands.

You mean like Jesus did with the adulterous woman?  She should have been stoned
for her sin but Jesus let her off, thus avoiding God's commands.  The key to
understanding this is that we are ALL guilty of committing EVERY sin in the
book in God's eyes, at least according to James.  All sin is the same because
when we break part of the Law, we break the whole thing.  So a convicted 
murderer and everyone reading this post are equally worthy of death according
to the Law.  That is why Jesus came!  We all deserve death according to the
Law but God lets us off because of His grace!

Jesus shows us this truth when he tells
us in Matthew 5 basically that anyone who gets angry with his brother has
committed murder (and anyone who looks lustfully on a woman has committed
adultery, etc.).  Unless you've never gotten angry at someone, you deserve
execution.  Praise be to God that we are no longer under Law but under grace!

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
From: fyao@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (Frank Yao)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Assurance of salvation
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:39:32 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

Here's something that's being bugging me lately.  As a Protestant,
assurance of salvation is one of the doctrines I should be subscribing
to, and in a sense I do, however I would like to know if one is
considered saved if that person turns away from God?

Please include denomination after answer.

Thanx!

Love in Christ!!

Frank
From: revc@garg.campbell.ca.us (Bob Van Cleef)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:43:17 GMT
Organization: The Land of Garg

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> The rationale offered is that NFP doesn't involve imposing any
> _artificial_ impediment to fertility, thereby frustrating the natural
> purpose of the marriage act, or something along these lines.
> That is, every sexual act is still open to the _possibility_ of
> procreation, even during a woman's nominally infertile period.
> 
> If you don't have a background in Roman Catholic sexual ethics,
> and understand the echoes of Thomas Aquinas in this dialogue,
> this won't make any sense at all.

Well, as a "cradle Catholic", old enough to have seen both sides
of Vatican II, studied a lot of scripture, listened to a lot of sermons,
(oops - homilies :) I guess I still don't understand "Roman Catholic
sexual ethics." When I got married 20+ years ago, I was told to follow 
my conscience when it came to birth control. To this date I do not regret
following that advice.

I have seen NOTHING in the teachings on birth control that makes sense
in the end. If I KNOW my wife cannot get pregnant, for whatever reason,
then I know the sexual act is not open to procreation. That appears to
me to violate the "letter of the law." Where does the _artificial_ 
constraint come from? What is artificial? ANY act to prevent procreation
would be wrong if ALL sexual acts MUST be open to procreation.

Bob


-- 
revc@Garg.Campbell.CA.US (Bob Van Cleef)
The Land of Garg BBS -- +1 408 378-5108
Xref: sparky soc.religion.christian:7980 talk.religion.misc:25932 news.groups:25405
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Witnessing - Deception okay? (NOT!)
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:20:52 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln

Whitten@fwva.saic.com (David Whitten) writes:

>I can NOT understand or condone the actions and words of anyone who calls 
>themselves a follower of J-sus to say it is okay to trick or deceive anyone 
>about Truth.
> 
>I have stated this forcefully because it is important.  I am trying to speak
>responsibly, and yet be loving.  I just do not believe this is a good thing
>to say, and any who agree with deception or most "ends justify the means"
>arguments should consider the implications of what they agree to.
        -------------------------------------------------------

   Unfortunately, there is biblical sanction for doing just what Whitten 
deplores:

          Paul admits to lieing, in order to further the cause. (Romans 
       3:7)  He admits to pretending to be what he is not, in order to 
       win converts (con man!) (I Corinth, 9:20) 
   
          Also: "Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth 
       things, prophesy deceit."  (Isaiah 30:10). 

[It's pretty clear that Paul wouldn't have described it as lying.  The
passage talks about becoming as one under the law in order to win
those under the Law.  I believe he actually did live in accordance
with the Law.  So this isn't a lie.  It's in agreement with his
recommendations elsewhere: although Christians are free, they are well
advised to be careful about exercizing their freedom.  This also comes
up in the discussion about eating meat sacrificed to pagan gods.
While we are free to do so, we should not exercize that freedom if it
is likely to cause others to violate their conscience.   --clh]
From: Hugo_Jackson@mindlink.bc.ca (Hugo Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Sexuality & Sexual Abuse
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:54:54 GMT

I am a Masters of Divinity student at the Vancouver School of Theology
(British Columbia, Canada) in my final year, and pursuing ordination in the
Anglican (Episcopal) Church.

As part of our final year programme, each student is required to prepare and
present a day long seminar on an assigned topic to the other members of the
graduating class, faculty and interested others.

The topic I have been assigned is "Sexuality & Sexual Abuse", and I would be
keenly interested in hearing from s.r.c. readers what they think prospective
ordinands from the Anglican, Presbyterian, United, United Methodist and other
denominations should hear and be told about sexuality and sexual abuse.

I guess there are two aspects to this topic -- from both the societal
perspective (i.e. what can or should the church be doing about these issues)
as well as from the professional angle as well (i.e. what guidelines should a
conscientious ordained pastor adopt or consider in their professional
ministry).

There is no need to restrict yourself to these specific items -- I would be
most interested in hearing whatever you think might be worthwhile to include
in a seminar on this matter -- either e-mailed to me directly, or (at the
indulgence of the s.r.c. moderator) as a topic in this forum.

Thanks for listening.

Hugo Jackson
--
  *   +================================================================+
***** |                  Hugo_Jackson@mindlink.bc.ca                   |
  *   |                "you can't get there from here"                 |
  *   +================================================================+
From: athomson@otago.ac.nz (Alastair Thomson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:56:55 GMT
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

I find much of the argument about whether Dodd was 'really' a Christian to be a
little pointless.

1. He is now dead, so what does it matter, he is either with the Lord, or not
2. It is not my responsibilty to determine whether he is saved or not, that
responsibility lies with Jesus alone.
3. Whatever his statements before his execution, we will not know the true
state of his heart at the moment he died, that is what matters to the Lord.


A general comment on capital punishment. Do we have the right to take away the
opportunity for someone to receive Christ? In killing someone we cut short the
time they have to hear and respond. Whatever the crime we do not have the right
to condemn *anyone* to eternal damnation, that decision belong to our loving
and just God. 

-- 
===============================================================================
                                    |
Alastair Thomson,                   | Phone +64-3-479-8347
University of Otago,                | Fax   +64-3-479-8529
Department of Computer Science,     | e-mail athomson@otago.ac.nz
P.O. Box 56                         |
Dunedin                             |
New Zealand                         |
 
   "God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son, to die in 
    our place, so that we may have eternal life" John 3:16, paraphrase

===============================================================================
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re : Biblical Contradictions
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:49:24 GMT
Organization: (The Afterlife of Gogol, Inc.)

In article <Jan.7.02.09.12.1993.6393@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
nobuyah@microsoft.com (Nobuya Higashiyama) wrote:
> I don't know about your Christianity, but mine is rooted in belief that this
> world is rational, truths are absolute, God has revealed Himself in the Bible,
> and therefore all I need to know about Him and my relationship to Him is
> contained therein.

Here's a Gedanken experiment, if an end user finds false information
in a computer manual, does the end user still have faith in the rest
of the documentation or not? 

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Usenix member # 6110.
From: news@cs.ruu.nl (Six O'Clock News)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Protestant convent?
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:20:48 GMT
Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

>>>>> norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak) (RAC) writes:

RAC> In article <Jan.6.01.42.50.1993.2706@geneva.rutgers.edu>, xkkreit@ericsson.se (Erik Reitsma TX/UB VL4031 94009 ) writes:
RAC> |> Are there any protestant convents, anywhere in the world? If so, could you
RAC> |> give some information about those?

RAC> There is the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary (Evangelische
RAC> Marienschwesterschaft), the Lutheran group led by Mother Basilea Schlink.
RAC> They're based in Germany, of course, but I don't know if they're present in
RAC> *.se.  (Their US house is in Arizona.)

There is (also in Germany) the Jesus Bruderschaft, in Gnadental (nice name,
i.e. Grace Valley), a small village alongside the A3 between Cologne and
Frankfurt. I don't know if they still exist, but they did 10 years ago.
They have brothers, sisters, and even married couples. They have also
dependencies in other countries.

And don't forget Taize in France. They started as a protestant group for
men, but I think they are now mixed protestant/RC.

I have visited all three of the above, but I suppose there are other groups
also.

(By the way, is 'convent' only used for exclusive female groups in English?)
-- 
Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: +31 30 531806   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   +31 30 513791   Internet:  piet@cs.ruu.nl   (*`Pete')

[Convent is normally used for religious communities of females.  The
Concise Oxford says "especially", implying that generic use is
possible, but I've never heard it used otherwise.  --clh]
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:49:52 GMT
Organization: (The Afterlife of Gogol, Inc.)

In article <Jan.6.01.50.42.1993.2773@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
balsamo@stargl.enet.dec.com (Antonio L. Balsamo (Save the wails)) wrote:
>        Have you ever sinned, and by your sin hurt someone else?  If so, do you
>    think that you will go to heaven?  The point is that NO ONE deserves to go
>    to heaven.  Sure, you may not have raped and killed children, but you and
>    I, like Wesley Allen Dodd have sinned and deserve to go to hell.  By out
>    sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilt of killing the Son of God,
>    Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse then killing and raping children.  Yet we are
>    "saveable".  If God can forgive us for what we did, surely he can forgive
>    Mr. Dodd.

This guilt of killing a person that may or may not have existed as a
godlike being is very much based on the faith. In other words those
who don't believe in this scenario don't either have any guilt. 

Moral values and teachings are relative, not absolute.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Usenix member # 6110.
From: phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: How?Singles group (email list)
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:00:32 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha


 How would you like such a group to be done?
I would like e-mailed answers on this.
Would you like it to be randomly matched,selectiveley matched,a whole 
list of single males,females?
Just curious...

-- 
 MR Shannon Saltzman
 "Is doggie heaven kitty hell?" Stephanie phoenix(age 6)
 "How does teflon stick to a skillet when nothing sticks to teflon?"
 The words of Mike Warnke.
From: nobuyah@microsoft.com (Nobuya Higashiyama)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re : Biblical Contradictions
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:09:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <Jan.5.03.29.22.1993.1038@geneva.rutgers.edu> thughes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tracy L. Hughes) writes:
>A lot of people seem to stand by this, as much as they stand by a similar
>saying: "You cannot pick and choose in a religion".  The sad thing is that
>neither is true.  Religion is the attempt to discover what is God's will for
>us.  Given no personal relationship with God other than what we have been
>taught or read, all we can do is pick or choose.  To believe the Bible is
>God's revelation for us is one such choice.  To believe it merely points
>the way towards Him is another such choice.  Many Christians have made both
>choices.  The point is, given no absolute knowledge, we haven't the right
>to define religion: only God has that right.  What we try to do is to
>determine just what God's definition is.  It is an arrogance to assume we
>are right to the point of peremptorily condemning those who do not agree with
>us to hell.  

Seems to me this is a case of "subjective" vs. "objective" religion.

You assert that it's perfectly OK for us to pick and choose from various sets
of beliefs and doctrines, as long as we're "developing a relationship with
God".  If you do not believe that Bible is God's revelation for us, what is
your basis for your belief in God (other than a warm feeling in your heart)?
Any religion rooted in opinions and feelings of its practitioners is built on
quicksand.

On the other hand, I believe the Bible teaches that there are absolutes in this
world, that there are absolute truths, and we are to use our *heads* as well as
our hearts in studying His revelation.  Bible asserts numerous times that it is
the authoritative revelation of God Himself.  This is a proposition which is
either true or false, not "it depends on how I feel about it".  If you believe
this is true, then the Bible will serve as a foundation for your world and life
view.  If you do not believe this is true, it seems that all your beliefs
about God are very relative and foundationless.

I don't know about your Christianity, but mine is rooted in belief that this
world is rational, truths are absolute, God has revealed Himself in the Bible,
and therefore all I need to know about Him and my relationship to Him is
contained therein.

Higgy (and no, I don't speak for Microsoft)
-- 
Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama              |
Microsoft Corporation                   | .signature under construction...
Internet: nobuyah@microsoft.com         |
CompuServe: 71570,533                   |