HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Santeria and animal-sacrifice
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:29:41 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <Nov.10.02.09.51.1992.12473@geneva.rutgers.edu> OFM writes:

   [So far the only Supreme Court cases I've heard of say that religious
   practices may be interfered with when there's a law with a secular
   purpose that just happens to affect the religious practice.  E.g.
   anti-drug legislation which interferes with American Indian religious
   practices.]

Let's not forget, however, that communion wine is a drug.  And, its
used in the most crucial ceremony of Christianity.  Peyote, as well,
for the people for whom it formed a part of the most crucial ceremony
of their religion.

This case was much closer than you might think.  In Prohibition days,
most Protestants did not use wine for communion.  Nonetheless, it was
clear that religious use of wine was not illegal.  If this precedent
were in place during Prohibition, large numbers (but a minority) of
Christians would have been blocked from practicing their religion.

Moreover, that blocking would have effected three groups: Catholics
(who "everyone" didn't like anyway), Anglicans (who were always a
little odd), and Lutherans (who represented generally disliked
immigrants).  A majority could easily be found.  

Plenty of people said that the peyote rituals in question weren't a
"real religion", and so it didn't matter.  Other people say that
prohibiting wine won't affect things, because *they* don't use wine in
religious practice.  If we don't oppose the denigration of the liberty
of those we think are a little screwy, then the people who think *we*
are a little screwy will hang us out to dry when the time comes.


--
Michael I. Bushnell            Gaude, virgo, salutata Gabriele nuntio.
+1 617 625 4518 (H)      |     Gaude, mater jucundata Jesu puerperio.
+1 617 253 8568 (W)     -+-    Gaude, conresuscitata resurgente filio.
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     Gaude, tua sublimata prole plena gaudio.
25 Belknap St Apt 1      |     Gaude, sumpta et locata cum Jesu in solio.
Somerville MA 02144            Esto nobis advocata in magno judicio, O Maria.
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Lost Salvation
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:54:50 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

Isn't the answer in my .signature?

All quotations arefrom the J. N. Darby translation:

I emphatize: 'M y   sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me; and I give them life   e t e r n a l ;   and they shall
n e v e r (Norwegian trans.: Never ever) perish, and no one shall
seize them out of my hand.' Further: 'My Father who has given [them]
to me is greater than all, and no one can seize them out of the hand
of my Father. I and the Father are one.'

Turn to John 6:35: '[And] Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life:
he that comes to me shall   n e v e r   hunger, and he that believes
on me shall   n e v e r   thirst   a t   a n y   time. But I have
said to you, that ye also have seen me, and do not believe. All that
t h e   F a t h e r   g i v e s   m e   shall come to me, and him that
comes to me I will not at all cast out. For I am come down from heaven,
not that I should do   m y   {emphatized in the Greek} will, but the
will of him that has sent me. And   t h i s   is the will of him that
has sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose
n o t h i n g , but should raise it up in the last day. For this is
the will of my Father, that   e v e r y   o n e   who sees the Son,
and believes on him, should have life eternal; and I will raise him
up at the last day.' Read the rest of the chapter, too, and also
compare it to ch. 17.

Ther could also be mentioned a lot of other things, for instance
that we are made part of the body of Christ (can a body lose one
of it members, and still be perfect), that we are elected according
to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Pet. 1:1), that we are
the choldren of God (who can one stop being anyones child?), that
we are born again (would the new nature that is born in us leave
God? We are not saved according to our old nature!), and also the
very fact that we are saved is the work of God alone. We   a r e
saved, not 'will be', that means that we in Christ already have
arrived in Heaven. 'As long as the head is above the water, one
can't drown the body'. We have an anchor that is fastened 'inside
the curtain', which means that to loosen it you would have to go
further than that. Is that possible?

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
    E-MAIL: david-s@ifi.hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Power
Date: 8 Nov 92 05:47:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)

[Comments about Christians trying to make this a godly nation, rather than
saving souls, deleted.]

     I agree that simply being in power is not the answer - I also think that
souls will not be saved *simply because* Christians are in power.  I think
there are a few things that Christians should work towards in attaining
some level of morality that would allow them to have an easier time of it.
     The main place we need to look is our schools.  Right now, some school
district are actively teaching things such as self-actualization and the
like that put the person first, instead of the Spirit inside him/her.  Indeed,
a poster on misc.kids noted that in some schools, an amorality is being taught
the children, in which they tell them to decide for themselves whether things
like robbery, murder, etc. are wrong.  The devil must have a field day with
some of these young minds, who are going to be tempted by curiosity and
a desire to learn, or to be respected.  No wonder there is a discipline
problem in schools.
     I think that such things would change if Christians are in power - this
benevolent type of leadership would create positive things.  The problems
that the original poster worried about mainly appear due to an abuse of
power; surely, that is conceivable, but if we as Christians recognize it
is there, when we do get into elected office or become judges (as I hope to
do soemday), we can constantly pray that what we do does not turn people
away from the message of Salvation.
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  : Me, age 4 & now: "Mommys and Daddys & other
   "Thou shalt love God with all: relatives have to give lots of hugs & love
thy heart...*and thy neighbor as: & support, 'cause Heaven is just a great
thyself*." Luke 10:27           : big hug that lasts forever and ever!!!"
From: wilcox@vax.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Wilcox, Mathematical Institute, Oxford, (2)73571)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Women Priests (was Re: VNS: Fri 6-Nov-1992)
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:49:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.111229.19081@rdg.dec.com>, evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME) writes:
>     A survey by the Radio 4 Today programme indicates that next week's vote
>     by the General Synod of the Church of England on the ordination of women
>     priests is going to be very close.
> 

I just thought I'd mention that in terms of Anglican politics, `very close'
does not mean `split 50-50'. Rather it means `66 or 67 percent in favour of a
measure that needs a two-thirds majority in each of three houses.' 

For those interested in the figures, they are:

Bishops: 70-something % in favour
Clergy: 67% in favour
Laity: 66% in favour.

Every member of all three houses was polled; responses were obtained from about
85% of members. The sample size is about 130 bishops and several hundreds in
the other two houses. The actual vote is on Wednesday, November 11. 

A similar survey of ordinary church-goers by the BBC Radio Sunday programme
found that about 67% were in favour of women priests, and that 72% would accept
a woman as a parish priest. An overall majority of those polled was in favour
in each of the three broad camps: evangelicals, `unaligned' and
Anglo-Catholics. Among priests as a whole, again about 67% were in favour,
though only 40-odd% of Anglo-Catholics were.

Whichever way the vote goes, there will be some adverse reaction. If the vote
ends up in favour, many priests are expected to become Roman Catholics. There
will be protection for such people. If, however, the vote goes against, it is
expected that some ordained women will leave the Anglican church. There are no
proposals yet for compensating these people. There are also talks of `strikes'
by priests, who may withdraw from celebrating the Eucharist until legislation
goes through.

If the vote passes its required two-thirds majority it must be ratified by
parliament, where more opposition is likely. If the vote falls it cannot be
reintroduced until a new Synod is in place, which will currently be in 1995. It
is theoretically possible that Synod is dissolved immediately to allow a new
Synod next year, but that is unlikely.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: allan@sunk.hc.ti.com (Allan Poindexter)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Calvin's eucharistic theology
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:21:39 GMT

Joe Buehler writes:

   [My discussion on finding the sources of a supposed harmonization of
   Calvin's eucharistic theology and the Council of Trent -dex]

   There is a great deal of disorder in the Catholic Church at present;
   that Ganoczy is a Catholic priest and theology professor means
   little.  There are many such falling all over themselves in the rush
   to make anything and everything Catholic.

I tried to indicate that this was a possibility (probability?) in the
original post.  I probably should have made that more clear.

   Calvin's Eucharistic theology isn't compatible with Trent's.  Some of
   Trent's teaching is directed against Calvin.

It would be hard to be more suprised than I would be if these people
make their case.  However, I guess I should at least read their claims
before dismissing them.  Besides the claim is so outrageous that it has
made me intensely curious.

   If you want to read up on this, I suggest you read the appropriate
   articles in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

ARRRRGH!  That !@#$%^& 1917(?) edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. :-)
Do you know hard it is for someone (especially a nonRC) to find one of
those things?  I'm still looking for one to read the article on
predestination you recommended a few months back.  If I ever find one I
going to have to buy the bloody thing and never let it out of my sight.
All the libraries seem to have moved to the newer edition.  I've never
had this much trouble finding a book.

OFM writes:

   [It's true that Calvin believed in the Real Presence, and thus that
   his views are closer to the Catholic Church than Zwingli's were.
   However to say that he is compatible with Trent is going too far.

The primary aim of my post (which I didn't make clear enough) was to
find out what research Ganozcy is talking about here.  As I implied
earlier in this post I don't expect them to actually succeed in
harmonizing Trent and Calvin.

tntigwi,
dex
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Nudity - Why be ashamed?
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:55:26 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

Metaphorically, Adam may have realized he was stained and his
shame at being naked was that he could not hide this fact.

As far as Christianity and humor, I think it safe to say this
was the first known example of the "lame excuse".
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
  - Luxury!  In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
From: SECBH@cunyvm.bitnet
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: re: Door-to-Door evangel.
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:58:42 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <Nov.9.01.06.21.1992.10578@geneva.rutgers.edu>
shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:

In response to suggestions on door-to-door evangelism:

>  + try a multi-visit strategy, where the first visit is basically
>    introducing yourself, the second is introducing the gospel, the
>    third following up with them.

Please keep in mind that this activity intrudes on the privacy of
someone's home, and further that, uninvited, you are presuming to
open a discussion about deeply held personal beliefs with people
you don't know.

Be considerate enough to make a quick and friendly departure and do
*not* make multiple visits if the person does not respond positively.

Jack Carroll
From: angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Curious...
Date: 13 Nov 92 05:35:21 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

Hi... I'm not a regular reader/poster here (but I did read most of the
posts before posting one myself -- yes, I follow Nettiquette) :)

I was just curious about what religions various people came from before
converting to Christianity.  I was raised Catholic myself (though I have
background in many other areas), and I just wanted to know what the former
cross-section of the Christian population is in general:  mostly
people who were raised Christian, many formerly devout Jews, people
who were not really any religion or not practicing, former pagans,
Hindus, etc...?  I know it doesn't matter now, once you've accepted
Christ, you are Christian & that's it, but I was just wondering...

Thanks (in advance) for your info...

angelai@wam.umd.edu
From: altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The pope and Galileo
Date: 13 Nov 92 06:55:53 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <Nov.12.02.57.33.1992.17221@geneva.rutgers.edu>
   hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <Nov.11.03.03.02.1992.15171@geneva.rutgers.edu>
   jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>
>>Where the problems came from was that Galileo was totally convinced,
>>conclusive evidence or not.  His character was such that he could get
>>pretty vehement about propagating and defending his ideas.
>
>From what I once heard in a history of science class, Galileo's
>character was probably a major culprit in this saga.  Your
>reference to his being vehement with his ideas is probably an
>understatement.  The man was very good at arguing his points and
>was not satisfied just to win, he had to squash his opponent and
>damage his ego. [...]

I fully understand the statements of our moderator regarding this
subject, and have had my share of physics classes, but I would like 
to inject a note of caution with regards our modern opinions of 
Galileo.

During the formation of the early Christian Church, there were many 
contending sects during the formation of the canon and Church dogma.
The sum total of our knowledge of these sects comes from Irenaeus,
a Roman bishop. I've heard Irenaeus described in almost the same terms
as Galileo -- totally convinced, evidence or not, pretty vehement about
propagating and defending his ideas. In fact, being labelled heretical
back in those days wasn't quite the same as a simple excommunication.
It sometimes meant death.

My point is that when discussing "heretical" Christian sects of the 
period, we are in many cases relying almost solely on evidence from
a hostile source, that is, one who violently disagreed with the 
subject he was writing about. Witness much of the early history of the
Native American peoples.

And our history regarding Galileo was also written by hostile sources.

Blessings,

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
From: dcp@teak05.cray.com (Dennis Parker)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Power
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:52:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: geneva.Nov.10.01.52.29.1992.12361
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <Nov.9.00.44.49.1992.10414@geneva.rutgers.edu>, huang@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca writes:

> What is the difference between installing "Christians" and "Christianity?"
> I think the distinction between these two is rather small in a democratic
> society, for Christians vote in godly people to the offices and expect
> them to govern in the fear of the Lord.  When Dan Quayle stood up for the
> family values he was in a way attempting to institute Christianity.  It
> is a Very Good thing for a highly visible person like him to preach  
> to the ungodly what is right and wrong.  (Better yet, he was not ashamed
> of the gospel.)  I cannot see the anything sinister when godly statesmen
> like Henry Hyde or Bob Casey go on the airwaves to express their faiths.

I think the difference between installing "Christians" and "Christianity" to
great.  I believe that "Christianity" will be installed someday - when Christ
returns.  If Jesus was running for President, I'd vote for him :-).  But he's
not.  Fallible human beings are running for President and Senator and Governor
and so on.  Fallible human beings who are Christians are still fallible.
While they may start out "governing in fear of the Lord", it never seems to
end there.  There was a Christian theocracy in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Abuse of power by Christians was widespread.  Let us not make the mistake of
believing that we today are made of sterner stuff.

Beyond basic human weakness, there's the question of which flavor of
Christianity should we install in power? Catholics?  Baptists?  My
denomination? Yours?  

Finally let me state that there is absolutely nothing sinister about
Christians, including Christians in public office, proclaiming their faith
in public forums.  That's what we're supposed to be doing.  There's
also nothing sinister about Christians voting or serving in public office.
Heck, we're probably not going to do any worse than other folks :-).  We
should *not* try to use the power of government to force Christian principles
on other people.  We have to  show them the benefits of Christianity by
persuasion and example (emphasis on example!), not by legisilation.

- Dennis Parker
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: NIV Bible on PC
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:25:44 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Nov.4.00.32.50.1992.1023@geneva.rutgers.edu> mike@mik.uky.edu (Mike Mattone) writes:
|
|   Can anyone recommend a good yet relatively inexpensive ($30-$40) NIV  
|Bible for my PC?  I looked at one (by Zondervan, I think) that allowed the  
|user to attach his own comments to individual verses, which I think would  
|be good for Bible study.  The only problem was the price: $99 (on sale!)  
|with the study notes for an extra $60 or $70.  I would like to organize my  
|Bible studies and keep all my notes in one place, etc, but I can't afford  
|to spend that kind of money to do so.  Can anyone suggest an alternative?

This is what I use.

QuickVerse 2.0 by Parson's Technology.  NIV $79 (or maybe less) and
   I believe it includes user notes
KJV add-on $39 (or $49)
Greek-Hebrew add-on $39
a couple of others versions plus maps, topical bible, $39 or $49 each.


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Quantum Leap
Date: 13 Nov 92 06:51:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Nov.12.02.56.52.1992.17211@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
>Does anyone out there watch Quantum Leap besides me?  Did you catch the little
>
>Comments or explainations?

Comments?  Yes.  Throw away your television.  What better way for Satan
  to enter your home.  It is VERY EASY to just sit and watch while
  filthy communication, illicit sex, wrong philosophies, and even
  blatant anti-Christianity is bombarded into the home.  I would
  recommend just monitoring what you watch, but I find that the 
  temptation is much too alluring and that one usually ends up slowlly
  drifting back into the depths of the sin tube.  Take heed of
  Psalm 101:3 "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes..."

Explanation? That's Hollywood for ya.

mc
From: moy@acf3.nyu.edu (Gloria J. Moy,N.DORM C3,(212)9983456,)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: End of the World?  Not yet....
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:39:24 GMT
Organization: New York University


	
	There was an article in New York Newsday yseterday that the
Doomsday church disbanded and that they also apologized for
misinterpreting the Bible.
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Which "free will" do you mean?
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:14:19 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

What we see in Scripture is at least five aspects of "free will":

1.  God.  He has the free will to make choices within His nature or capacity
    for good.

2.  Man before the fall.  He had the free will to choose to obey or disobey his
    Creator; he had the nature or capacity to choose either path.

3.  Man after the fall.  He has the free will to make choices within his nature
    or capacity for sin/disobedience.

4.  Redeemed man after justification and before glorification.  He has the 
    free will to make choices within his two natures or capacities - good 
    and evil.

5.  Redeemed man after glorification.   He will have the free will to make 
    choices within his perfected nature or capacity for good.

The danger is trying to mix and match these very distinct conditions.

John
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Door-to-Door evang..
Date: 11 Nov 92 08:00:20 GMT
Reply-To: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 12412@geneva.rutgers.edu, jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes:
>shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
>
>>First:
>>  You've got to realize that door-to-door evangelism is _in_general_
>>not very effective.  The number of people who will respond positively
>>to the gospel from a complete stranger is small, and the number who will 
>>follow that response with involvement with a church, Bible study or
>>other discipling group is smaller still.  People respond more often to
>>people they _know_ care about them, rather than those they think are
>>just  "getting another notch in the ol' Bible".

Don't be discouraged, because we can't get quick results, but
God can be using you when you are willing to go door-to-door.  You may
be the only Christian that reaches out to that household.  You may make
a new friend.

>
>Just to echo what Tim said, I would encourage you to devote your time,
>energy, and money to building friendships with non-Christians.  Spend time
>praying about your priorities, and see how you can clear your schedule of
>various church activities.  Get to know your neighbours, classmates, and
>workmates.  Hang around them.  Get to know their friends and introduce them
>to yours.  *Earn* their trust by serving them and listening to them.
>Demonstrate the love of God by going out of your way for them.

Do this too.  But, if you have some extra time, you may also do the former.

>-- 
>Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
>"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|