HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Conservative (was Re: Into the highways and hedges)
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:24:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

I responded earlier to one of Rex's responses in this thread and asserted that
it would be my last post.  However I cannot allow the response he made to both
me and to Bill Kish to go unaswered in at least this respect:

Lex, much of the picture you painted in this post represents neither what I
nor Bill have said, nor what we espouse, nor the logical consequences of
our thought.  

While much of what you have said is true of the modern world, it was every
bit as true in the ancient world  as well.  We as Christians are called
to transform the world.  I think that I speak for many of us when I say that
we believe that transformation comes through God working with us and through
us as the body of Christ.  

You seem to think that if we don't take the same subjective stance as do you
that we are contributing to the problems.  I guess it is time to lay it on
the line once again.  All of the problems that you enumerated come from
people treating other people as objects.  This is the process of dehumanization
I've seen it at work in many places.  But one of the most disturbing is in the
church when conservatives in their zeal to make everyone see things their
way accuse anyone who doesn't of being part of the problem.  Well, I think
you need to take a hard look at your attitudes of exclusivity and ask yourself
did Jesus come to bring peace and love to the world, or did Jesus come to 
establish a new exclusive social order, membership of which is determined
by adherence to a theological construct.  If you are choosing the latter, or
even have doubts about the former, you're on the wrong side.

By the way, Spong is not all right, but he is far from all wrong.

Mike
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wandering Catechist?
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Sep.13.22.00.13.1992.7062@athos.rutgers.edu>, 91babik@gw.wmich.edu (Lisamarie Gemma Babik) writes:

> From: 91babik@gw.wmich.edu (Lisamarie Gemma Babik)
> Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
> Subject: Wandering Catechist?
> Organization: Western Michigan University

> Today at mass we had a "wandering catechist" speak after the homily.  Does 
> anyone know exactly what a wandering catechist is?  As near as I could tell
> (from what he was saying), it is the RC equivalent of an evangelist, but in
> a milder sort of way....  This guy came from Rome, Italy and was part of a 
> group of 3 young (under 40 as best as I could tell) men.  He spoke of his 
> life before Christ and how it has all changed....

> Anyone know for sure what a "wandering catechist" is?  Since I'm new to the 
> church (received 4/18/92), I figured this was just something I didn't learn 
> about...

Interesting term.  I have not heard that term before.  Now of course Catholic
Christianity engages in evangelism too, but your wandering catechist is
probably analogous to someone like Billy Graham (whom Protestants call a "tent
evangelist" or just evangelist.)

"Catechist" comes from the word catechesis, which comes from the Greek
katakhesis < katekhein, to teach by word of mouth.  A catechist is one who
teaches by word of mouth.  It sounds to me like your parish just wanted to use
a fancy name! :-) Indeed we have entire priestly orders dedicated to itinerant
preaching; I might mention the Dominican Order and the Franciscan Order.
Remember Friar Tuck of Robin Hood?  He was a "wandering catechist".  So such a
concept has been a part of Catholicism for a long, long time.  Basically, a
"wandering catechist" "wanders" to different parishes to share and teach the
faith, and, from what you described, probably bring people into a closer
relationship with God.

And congratulations on being able to spell "catechist!" ;-)

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 -==================================/

[Religious terms can sometimes be interesting.  This term reminds me
of Methodist terminology.  Their pastors are officially "travelling
elders".  If a pastor is defrocked, the official term is that he is
"located".  This goes back to the days when Methodist pastors covered
a number of churches on a "circuit", typically on horseback.  --clh]
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:50:31 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation

I am posting this request for:

Laura Marwick
Department of Sociology
Brigham Young University
800 SWKT
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 378-3392

Laura is doing her graduate research on disaffiliation from Mormonism 
and conversion to Evangelical Christianity.  If you would like to 
participate in this research and tell your story of how you were Born 
Again, please contact Laura at the address or phone number above.  
You do not have to give your name if you do not wish to.






-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
From: anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Disagreeing with one's church (was Re: Clinton & Gore)
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:46:00 GMT
Organization: Society of Independent Newswaifs

In article <Sep.9.04.46.16.1992.22354@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
west@esd.dl.nec.com	 (Mike West) writes:
> Again, I am not talking about minor points, or small issues of
> interpretations, but major elements of lifestyle and fundamental
> beliefs.  If after examining your positions, you determine that
> you truly believe that you are right and your church is wrong
> why would anyone even consider fighting to change the church
> instead of moving to a new one?

Because he or she does not reject all (or even most) of the fundamental beliefs
of his/her church, maybe.  Or because, since churches are human institutions as
well as divine and therefore potentially in need of reform now and again, that
person feels a call to reform his/her church.  It also depends on what you
consider fundamental.  I don't agree with the RC church's stance on the
ordination of women, for example, but I'm not about to jump ship.  A woman who
felt called to that ministry and could not answer that call might very well
change churches; so also might someone who couldn't be reconciled to the
introduction of women priests into his/her parish.  (No flames, please -- these
are simply examples.)  

I've been interested, ever since I first heard of it, of Newman's theory of a
sensus fidelium -- the idea (the learned correct me if I err) that the
convictions of the body of the faithful on a particular subject can also be
inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as the pronouncements of the hierarchy are. 
I assume that an educated laity, consciences properly formed, is required here,
although I haven't checked.  If the sensus fidelium does exist, then it becomes
necessary for the church to do a lot more talking with itself about
controversial issues.  It also behooves people like me to become much more
educated in our faith than we are -- and that is a most desirable thing as
well.

* Liz Broadwell (by643@cleveland.freenet.edu) ***************************
* Department of English                       *   Cor ad Cor Loquitur   *
* The University of Pennsylvania              ***************************
                                    
Newman Centenary Celebration * 1893-1993 * 100 Years of Campus Ministry!
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:23:27 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

{sorry about leaving all the original, but I'd have to repeat it to
explain what I was talking about, if I cut it.}
[I did it for you.  Inews will not accept postings that are more than
50% quoted text. --clh]

markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
> Those who have not heard the word, cannot believe.  Therefore they
> shall perish.  This is why missionary work is so crucial.

hp-col!smithw@kd4nc.ampr.org (Walter Smith) writes:
> If a missionary
> goes and teaches someone the principles that Jesus taught, but
> doesn't actually impose "Christianity" as a religion on him, do
> you feel he has done anything?  

Anything that a missionary imposes is a work of man.  Such things have
happened, but salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit.  And Paul says
that this work usually comes in the presence of human proclamation
(faith cometh by hearing...).

>If a person lives by those principles,
> but never even hears of the religion "Christianity" or the name
> Jesus, is God going to cast him away?  Or, does he, by his actions,
> show that he knew Christ in his heart without knowing the Name?

God does bless people in time and history for conforming to his ethical
requirements.  But the real package involves "Confess[ing] with thy
mouth Jesus as Lord".

> When someone poses questions like the originator of this thread
> did, he isn't neccessarily questioning "God's eternal plan or
> righteousness", just some people's narrow, letter-of-the-law
> approach to it.  

But the question is about eternity.  It is about the decrees of God.

God has sent many missionaries to many peoples to proclaim his
salvation.  Remember Joseph in Egypt, Jonah with the sailors and then
in Nineveh, Paul all over the place.  There have also been places where
God did not send missionaries.  How about China during the time of the
Judges?  God has provided a book in which he tells how he deals with
men.  It is presumptious to say, "That's not Godly, I think he does it
this way."

I suspect you did not mean the whole Bible when you spoke of
"letter-of-the-law".  But how can we possibly find a better source than
the letter of the book that God provided?

dan
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: taking care of your body (was Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?)
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:47:24 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Sep.6.15.43.21.1992.7818@athos.rutgers.edu> Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:

   Consideration 1:  The Bible's usage of the word signifying wine is generic
   in that it covers fermented and unfermented grape juice.

Teetotalling is a very Puritan sort of thing.  I just recently found
out that there are whole areas in the South that are "dry".  I found
that a bit surprising in this day and age.

I think there is no Biblical support for mandatory teetotalling.  Our
Lord used wine at the Last Supper, for example.

You just have to watch it, if you do drink wine.  It is sinful in
so far as it affects your use of reason.

Personally, I rather think that "demon liquor" would be a bit less of
a problem if it was cultural in this country to drink wine with meals,
as it is in at least some parts of Italy, for example.  It would build
up people's tolerance, and alcohol would be no big deal when children
got older.

Hilaire Belloc, in his usual style, noted that both Calvin and
Robespierre came from the part of France where no wine was made.
:-)

[If I believe "The Puritan Dilemma", it is not a Puritan thing.  The
claim there is the Puritans believed in moderation, considering
complete abstinence to be taking the easy way out.  --clh]
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question for fundamentalists
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:33:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Sep.12.23.57.38.1992.13105@athos.rutgers.edu> boe@cadsun2.slac.stanford.edu (Robert Boeninger) writes:
>As a serious sceptic, I have a fundamental question for so-called Christian 
>fundamentalists.
>
>Concerning the claimed inerrancy of the Bible, how is it possible to 
>accept as true, facts about the nature of the Bible, such as its inerrancy,
>its being inspired by God, and so on, based on the Bible making such claims
>for itself?  That would appear to be a a case of circular reasoning...
>...Look at the difficulty fundamentalists are 
>having predicting the end of the world based on statements in the Bible.
>Do any of you have a sensible response to these issues, one that does NOT
>consist of simply quoting the Bible some more?
>
If we follow your line of reasoning, then how do we know anything spoken of
in the Bible is true? Then what do you base your faith on?  May as well be
on anything if that is the case.

I haven't heard a SINGLE fundamentalist predict the end of the world.  I would
be careful who you label a fundamentalist.  Perhaps you are confusing some
men who have predicted the end times with the term fundamentalist!
From: hp-col!tbc@kd4nc.ampr.org (Tim Chambers)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Looking for Resources
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:48:26 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division (PL 17)

During the past year my wife and I have become fairly active with St. Matthias
Episcopal Church in Monument, CO.  She publishes the newsletter and I was
recently persuaded to chair my church's Stewardship Committee for the coming
year.

I'm looking for resources from the USENET.  Do you access other electronic
networks that you have found valuable in your Christian discipleship?  I
wonder specifically about CompuServe -- is there discussion and activity that
would make it worth the monthly fee and my time?  How about other bulletin
boards or mailing lists?
From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question for fundamentalists
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:36:20 GMT


 miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu:

>The Bible is a very special kind of literature, and it too is its own
>best critic.  It is not about logical reasoning, circular or
>otherwise!  It is about meaning.

And without logical reasoning, there is no such thing as meaning. Without
logical reasoning, the chicken scratchings which appear in your Bible are
just that; the process of reading is built upon the foundation of using
rational processes to uncover an underlying meaning.

If all that were required to reveal the "meaning" content of the Scriptures
were Divine inspiration, there would have been no reason for translating the
Latin Bible into English, since the "meaning" would (or could) be imparted
without recourse to the text. Indeed there would have been no reason to
translate the Scriptures into Latin in the first place.

But that aside, I defy you to come up with a definition of "meaning" that
does not require logical reasoning. Does the Bible "mean" anything to a rock?


>From a purely logical standpoint?  I have noticed that people talk
>this way only when they are arguing.  From a purely logical standpoint
>there is no meaning whatever in our existence.  This will of course be
>disputed -- wishful thinking, perhaps?

Let's not confuse "logical" with "objective" or "scientific" here. As I
said in a posting yesterday, science does not *explain* the universe, it
only describes or models it.


>> Do any of you have a sensible response to these issues, one that does NOT
>> consist of simply quoting the Bible some more?
>
>I have noticed that when you ask scientists questions about science,
>their answers consist of more science.  I guess when you have a
>method, you use it.

Yes, when you have a method, you use it; and the question here boils down
to which method is to be used. Should we use the rational minds God gave us
to attempt to understand His creation, or should we turn off our brains and
accept uncritically what has been handed down to us from the past under the
suasion of irrational arguments from authority? The question has implications
for our attitudes toward life and creation.

Jeff Carroll
carroll@reston.cray.com
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 16 Sep 92 04:13:03 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <Sep.15.04.19.12.1992.25770@athos.rutgers.edu>, jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette) writes:

|> 
|> Harold Camping is an amillenial five point Calvinist.  In my experience
|> this kind of date setting is much more common amoung dispensationalists.
|> That is why it is surprising to me.  He runs a network of radio stations out
|> of Oakland, California which is why I thought he might be having an impact
|> out there.
|> 
|> John

Dr. Camping's "Family Radio" stations are not just in California, but are
scattered around the country.  Can anyone post a list?

Of course, the one with the biggest reach is the shortwave station in
Florida that beams his programs world-wide.  So if anyone's positioned 
to start a global uproar with an end-of-the-world prediction, it's 
Bro. Camping!

-_RC
From: mgray1@metz.une.edu.au (Matthew GRAY)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: re: dreams of the end
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:54:20 GMT


	When you have a dream, be cautious. Many dreams are given to
us by spirits, not always good, not always bad. A prophetic dream
almost surely is given by a spirit. As such we must be sure which is
which. The 1st test: can you remember all of your dream, or are there
large spaces? If you can't clearly remember the whole dream, then you
can be pretty sure it's not of God, but Satan. 2nd test: does it
contradict scripture? No dream from God will contadict His word.
Dreams are normally given by God as a warning or sign for individuals.
They are not given to be told to others, but to be kept to yourself.
Remember the dream, to look for it's fulfillment. If it is a dream
about ourselves, and something which is going to happen to us,
normally bad, we should try with all our might to stop the event
happening, like when Jonah went to the people of Ninevah. He gave them
the prophescy that they would be destroyed in 40 days - they listened
to him, repented, and God turned the days into years.  God doesn't
give prophescies to us without our being able to avoid the prophescy,
otherwise there wouldn't be much point in telling us, would there?
	[ Insert large pile of refferences, sorry, no cookbook at the moment]
From: tlc20700@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas L. Carney)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mother of God
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:35:46 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:

>If memory serves, the title "Mother of God" (theotokos) actually goes back
>to the Christological dispute on whether Jesus was God.
>--

Nestorius argued that Mary was the Christotokos (Birth-Giver of Christ,
i.e., Christ the man), while the rest of the Church claimed that she
was the Theotokos (Birth-Giver of God).  Now before I get flamed for
this, let me explain.  If Mary was indeed Christotokos, then Jesus Christ
could not have been fully God and fully man brought together.  Nestorius
and his advocates argued that Jesus Christ was just that. 

The Third Oecumenical Council, held at Ephesus (where Holy Tradition holds
that the Theotokos lived there with St. John the Evangelist until he
was exiled to Patmos) condemned Nestorianism.  There are still Nestorians
today in the Middle East.

Tom
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:46:01 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

Our moderator writes in response to questions on inerrancy,

>[I think the answer is pretty clear.  If there is actually a teaching
>of Jesus that contradicts something in the Bible, then inerrancy is
>false.  I don't see how it could survive a teaching of Jesus that
>contradicts anything in the Bible.  But the practical difficulties of
>actually using a hypothetical new teaching to demolish inerrancy would
>be immense.  (1) how would you prove that the discovery is real?  (2)
>There's a good deal of room for interpretation in both Jesus and Paul.

I'm confused about what the doctrine of inerrancy really means.  Isn't it
simply an assumption by the reader that makes interpretation easier?  In other
words, the reader assumes the Bible to be united on a given subject so that
a difficult passage can be related to a simpler passage in another book to give
interpretation of the difficult passage.  For example, if I assume inerrancy, 
I can relate Luke 14:26 (a very popular verse on talk.religion.misc) to its 
parallel in Matthew to more completely understand what Jesus means about
hating others.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-14)
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:33:10 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Monday, September 14:

     I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, that, after I have 
preached to others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow.  
<1 Corinthians 9: 27>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:34:30 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

>My sense is that "all things in moderation" would apply here.  Smoking one
>cigarette a month probably isn't going to do much harm to one's body.  Neither
>is one mambo banana split a month.  Or a shot of scotch.  The problem comes
>when one starts smoking, say, 600 cigarettes a month, or a pack a day.
>Or 30 banana splits.  A half bottle of scotch a day.  And so on.  

I have never smoked, but I think it might be my Christian duty to start.
We live in an age that tells us that love of others and God must be rooted in
prior self-love, so perhaps smoking could become a symbol of the renounciation
of that kind of self-centred worldliness: a joyful statement of disregard
for self. And it would be a clear sign to unbelievers that sinners are welcome
in any condition into the Church, and that they needn't fear having a burden placed
on them greater than the easy and liberating one of Jesus.

-ricko