HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sschaff@roc.slac.stanford.edu (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:33:44 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <Jan.26.03.53.47.1993.14429@athos.rutgers.edu>, j
nielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen) writes:
|> In article <Jan.25.00.47.05.1993.4618@athos.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu 
 (Charley Wingate) [cites C.S. Lewis that the sphericity of the Earth was known
 in the Middle Ages]


|> If this is the case, then why were people concerned about sailing
|> over the edge of the world??
|> 
|> I know that it was figured out before that the earth was not flat. But,
|> you are contending that this was not only accepted by ALL educated
|> people but it was also common knowledge? 
|> 
|> Where in the book does he say this? Is he saying EVERYONE knew that
|> the earth was a sphere or is he saying that some people read
|> Ptolemy and believed him? 
|> 
|> And, again, what about all those sailors who were concerned about
|> sailing over the edge of the world?

	*Were* sailors really afraid of sailing over the edge, or is this 
a myth?  (I don't know the answer -- just asking).  Certainly more or 
less everyone who bothered to write anything on the subject during the 
"high" Middle Ages believed that the Earth was round.  For a good 
reference in Lewis, see _The Discarded Image_ (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 140-141; 
he also mentions some exceptions who held other theories.  Just for 
fun, I'll throw in another citation that I just ran across, in _The Travels 
of Sir John Mandeville_ (trans. Moseley; Penguin, p. 128), ca. 1356: "It 
can be seen from this that the world is quite round; for the parts of 
the firmament which can be seen in one country cannot be seen in another."  
As to the question of whether ordinary folk believed this, I have seen  
the claim that all sea-faring and coast-dwelling people were well aware 
of the Earth's roundness, since you can see the effect of the curvature 
on a distant ship at sea; I don't know if there's any evidence to 
support such statements, however.
	What, say, a Saxon deep in the forest in 700 A.D. 
believed about the shape of the Earth might be a different matter, but 
people like that didn't leave many records behind.


-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
From: edwin@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Edwin Chung)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:58:21 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.

cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:

>If God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does He allow sufferings
>to exist?

Similar to Chade Meng, I am also struggling with this "Simple Question".
Maybe someone somewhere on the net can help me with it.

Very sorry to say this, but I think there must be a better explaination
than FREE WILL!  See, if God is *All Powerful* (Omnipotent and Omniscient)
He MUST have known about the suffering EVEN BEFORE He created this world
etc.  And if He is *All Loving*, why did He still create this world KNOWING
that it will lead to suffering!  Also, why are some of us created better/worse
than others?  Some of us have better brains, some of us better looks, some
of us better lifes etc!


Edwin (edwin@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au)
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Assurance of salvation
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:45:32 GMT

trevino@hv-3.pa.dec.com (Christopher D. Trevino) writes:
> 
>         Of course, if what you say is true, we don't
> have to believe in a God and we don't care about the lives we lead.
> The once saved, always saved attitude is one that keeps the churches
> empty. Why go to church, read the bible, or pray if we are going to be
> saved regardless of what we do with our lives.
> 

I tried to answer this objection in a previous post:

"There is a common way to abuse this doctrine which is repulsive and
 can push you toward rejecting it.  This major abuse is that it will 
 tempt some to say, "OK, now I'm saved. And you say I can't lose it 
 -- so it's party time! I'll just live any old way I feel like and 
 still get to heaven in the end." But the teaching of the NT is that
 you will no longer live the old life if your conversion is genuine.
 See Titus 2:11,12 and 1st John 1:6, 2:4, and 3:9-10. "If we claim to
 have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie ...".
 There is no need to throw out perseverance of the saints in order
 to shake the uncommitted out of complacency. Other NT teaching is 
 useful for that."

You can reject the "regardless of what we do with our lives" and still
hold on to eternal security. I do. My church does, and it is the most
alive and active church I have ever seen. We have no paid staff at
all, our pastor draws a salary from a different organization, leading 
outreach Bible studies to the Phoenix and Tucson business communities.
This church, which teaches eternal security, runs entirely on volunteer 
efforts, believers using their spiritual gifts to minister and serve
where there is need. It is hardly an "empty" church or filled with those
abusing grace through disobedient lifestyles.

---
Dave Weaver
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com
---
Alt.atheism Ingenious Explanations
  "Wasn't Lazarus buried alive just because the family/physicians 
          couldn't tell clinical from biological death?"

[That ol' Monty Python peeve: "Bring out your dead ... Here's one ... 
 I'm not dead ... What? ... Nothing, here's your ninepence ... 
 I'm not dead ... He says he's not dead ... Yes he is ... I'm not ... 
 He isn't ... He will be soon, he's very ill ... I'm getting better ... 
 No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment ... I can't take him 
 like this, it's against regulations... I don't want to go on the cart 
 ... Oh, don't be such a baby...]
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about Joseph
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:48:40 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Jan.20.00.21.32.1993.1033@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>: As the
>: same gospels, from the same oral tradition, *also* indicate in Mr. Reid's
>: reference above that Mary bore no children other than Jesus, it seems logical
>: to *me*, as well to more scholarly types in the history of bible studies,
>: that those relatives of Jesus's, the word for whose relationship was transla-
>that arguments about the ambiguity of the term "brother" have more to do with
>defending a later theological affirmation of Mary's perpetuual virginity than
>with any historical facts underlying the gospels.  I prefer the simplest 
>explanation: Jesus did have brothers and sisters, and later speculations
>about Mary made that problematic.

   That "simplest" explanation is also problematic.  After the
Resurrection (e.g. John 20), Jesus instructs Mary Magdalene to go tell
His "brothers" that He is going to ascend to the Father.  Mary
Magdalene promptly goes to give this news to His disciples.  Does this
mean that the disciples were the Blessed Virgin Mary's children as
well?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: baseball@catch-the-fever.scd.ucar.edu (Gregg Walters)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Movement for the Dsyfunctional
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:41:06 GMT
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO

In Article: 18113 of soc.religion.christian,
ap932@cleveland.freenet.edu (Larry Cuy) wrote >>

Perhaps the reason that most dysfunctional people are attracted
to Christ has nothing to do with the intentions of those whom
you perceive to be preaching intolerance and hate.

My wife and I were both raised in dysfunctional families and we
each have our own ongoing problems.  We find solace in our faith,
but we have never been encouraged to hate someone.

Christians hate the sin, not the sinner.

I have an article at home, saved from the Rocky Mountain News, in
which two atheists stated that a belief in God helps people who
have trouble defining a moral foundation for themselves.

Members of a church have access to the conseling provided by the
minister.  The less fortunate of our society can not afford the
cost of long term psychotherapy.  "Trickle-down economics" has
made this worse, but that's another debate inappropriate for this
forum.

Peace,
Gregg

Deacon & Financial Secretary
Valley Heights Christian Church
Thornton, CO
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Theonomy vs. autonomy
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:22:44 GMT

In <Jan.20.00.03.27.1993.687@geneva.rutgers.edu> tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:


> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
>>
>> The intent of the Law was to show us sin.  Remember that the
>> Law also declares a rebellious son should be stoned at the city
>> gate [Deuteronomy 21:18-21]. Are we to carry this out?

>Are you suggesting that a rebellious son was only offensive to God 3000
>years ago, and that now He's "gotten over it?"

>           [  .  .  .  ]           Autonomous law (man's standard) is
>arbitrary law, and the eventual result is tyranny.  Only God's law is
>perfect, just and good  -- a delight (cf. Psalm 19:7; 119:77).

Answer the question!  This perfect, just and good --- delightful --- law
calls for stoning the rebellious son, as well as "cutting off from their
people" the couple that has sexual relations during the woman's menstrual
flow (Lev 20:18).  This chapter of Leviticus also contains the proof texts
for kill homosexuals, mediums, fathers-in-law marrying daughters-in-law
(Sorry, Judah and Tamar -- Gen 38), etc.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
From: wright@wyoming.scsd (Michael Wright)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Handmaid (was "I feel threatened...")
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:25:16 GMT
Reply-To: wright@wyoming.scsd
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 3181@athos.rutgers.edu, mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith ) writes:
 
>1) In our particular parish the majority of converts to the Roman Catholic
>Church are young adults who were raised without religion, became some form
>of evangelical/fundamentalist in college, found that unsatisfactory 
>intellectually and turn to Catholicism as the Church that maintains the
>historic sense of the Biblical times and an intellectual honesty compatible
>with contemporary times
>
>
>3)  The idea of recommending another denomination appalls me - as the Body of
>Christ we should not be divided; there are appropriately different spiritualities, different callings for different people but to be unable to
>accept the different ways that Gods works within individuals implies placing
>human judgment above divine judgment.  We learn from each other by being
>together not by splintering.



As a former Catholic, I find the above comment very atypical. I can see
time and time again, the prideful arrogance that is present in the
Catholic folk. I also see it in Baptist churches but, they are usually
the moderate to liberal type who do not hold fast to the literal
meaning of the WORD. I too would like to see the true Christian
churches come together. In a way they do, but only through the headship
of the body through Jesus Christ, not through an organization set up by
governmental/political agenda. My biggest objection to the whole
Catholic thing is the worship though a priest with a view to ritual
teaching of idol worship in the name of "Christ"; rather than the very
presence of Christ Jesus. Now I know and love some very dear Christian
in the Catholic system but they always seem to be lacking in the
fundamental truth of the gospel. So let's not talk of uniting the
churches your way or my way....but His way... Jesus Christ, the
infinite God-man.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wright
wright@sunny.dab.ge.com (from internet)
or
advax::"wright@sunny.dab.ge.com" (from decnet)
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Choosing Governmental Leaders
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:21:01 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey

In an earlier post, I quoted Romans 13 and asked "What does it mean for us
that the authorities in Roman Empire and Nazi Germany (just to name two) were
established by God?"

Jonathan Hayward replied by echoing Romans 13 again, and saying that God
makes things as he wants them without always telling us why.

He lists a bunch of examples, including this:

> It is his doing when the government propogates false ideologies so
> that believers learn to test critically and be able to reject falsehood
> as well as embrace truth.

This is what I mean, sort of.  What is the significance of saying that the
God of Truth actively supports the propogating of false ideas?

If God can put the US government in place and direct that government to
spread false information, why couldn't he have put the ancient government
of Israel in place and directed THEM to spread false information?  Say,
information about populations and wars and the founding of Israel itself?

If God can direct government officials in spreading falsehoods, why can't he
also direct prophets in spreading falsehoods?

 *

A literal reading of Romans 13 leaves us with the situation that God does not
lie, but he directs others to lie; God is not evil, but he directs others to
do evil.

If you hired someone to shoot your wife, most of us would say that you are
just as guilty as the guy who pulled the trigger.  Well, we are here saying
that God put Hitler in place; you said that God directed the slaughter of
millions of human beings.  By most standards, the one who directs and controls
evil is just a guilty as those who carry the instructions out.  Does that mean
God is guilty of these horrid evils, and that God is guilty of spreading
falsehoods?

If not, why not?  If God does make a human spread disinformation, isn't God
responsible for it?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
From: kw0426@shire.ac.arknet.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Wiccan?
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:47:49 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway

Hello-
This is:  kw0426@shire.ac.arknet.edu
I am interested in something called "the Wiccan religian",
a so called 'white magic society'.  My younger sister has recently
become involved with this group through a book club, much to the dismay
of my family.  Do you know anything about this group?  Are they dangerous,
 should my family be upset that my sister is involved?
If you do not have and information on this group, do you know a better
place for me to get information?

Thanks so much,
--Ken
kw0426@shire.ac.arknet.edu

[One possible source of information would be to ask this question in
alt.pagan.  I assume a lot of their readers are wiccans.  Wicca is an
attempt to reconstruct the religion followed by non-Christian "wise
women" in European and Early American traditions.  I have to say that
I'm sceptical about how much old tradition is really there, but I'm
certainly not in a position to know.  The accounts I've seen (which
are primarily sympathetic fictional accounts) suggest that they
worship primarily a sort of earth-mother goddess.  There is no real
central authority, though there are a couple of coordinating groups
you could contact to get more information.  The best-known is Circle.
The address I have is "Church of Circle Wicca" in Mt.  Horeb,
Wisconsin (though that information is a couple of years old).  Because
of the nature of Wicca, groups are likely to range from teenagers
trying to tick off their parents to groups doing serious ceremonial
magic.  So it's hard to assess how "dangerous" they are without
knowing the group.  A basic belief seems to be "you can do what you
want as long as you don't hurt anyone".  My primary concern wouldn't
be any specific harm, but rather the fact that involvement in wicca
would seem to take one fairly far from the Christian ideal of being a
disciple of Christ, as well as Christian ethics in a number of areas.
You might want to contact one of the "counter-cult" groups.  They
often try to track specific groups.  The problem is that of the
counter-cult groups, at least judging from books I've seen in
Christian bookstores, some of them seem about as off the wall as the
groups they're worried about.  They seem to have a tendency to be
hysterical.  One group that seems fairly sane is the Passantinos.
Their address is "Answers in Action, P.O. Box 2067, Costa Mesa, CA
92628", phone 714-957-0249.  But there are a number of other
counter-cult groups, several with hotlines.  I can get you a list if
you want.  --clh]
From: poram%mlsma@att.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about Joseph
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:22:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Jan.15.12.07.32.1993.10893@athos.rutgers.edu> jcai@phys.ksu.edu (jcai) writes:
>In <Jan.14.05.41.37.1993.15849@athos.rutgers.edu> jcj@tellabs.com writes:
>
>
>>	I was wondering why Joseph isn't mentioned in the New Testament
>>	aside from Christ's birth and early years.  Is there any record
>>	of what happened to him after Jesus began his ministry?
>
>I think the importance of Joseh is in the family line of Jesus. In this sense
>Jesus was called "son of David". Apart from this , Joseh's personal history
>may have little to do with the main theme of the Bible : God's salvation. 

My understanding is that Joseph was dead by the time Jesus began
his ministry, and apart from the story of Jesus in the Temple
aged 12 the gospels focus on the three years prior to Christ's
death and resurrection. On the cross Jesus commends Mary to
Joseph's care, an act that would most likely have been unnecessary
if Joseph was alive.
I have heard that Joseph's bringing Jesus up in his trade
(carpentry) was part of the Jewish adoption procedure, necessary
for Jesus to claim descent through Joseph. (Luke 3, cf Matt 1)
I also find it highly probably that Joseph was a lot older than
Mary, and died at some time during Jesus' teens or twenties
leaving the eldest son responsible for providing for his brothers
and sisters who are mentioned in Matt 13.55-56. During his ministry 
Jesus subordinated this task to that of his main ministry (Matt 
12.46-50).

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)
From: wcsa@iwtdx.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "...by his own hand upon papyrus" - a book
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:37:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs

In article <Jan.27.00.30.40.1993.3076@athos.rutgers.edu> rpitts@darth.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|I just ran across an advertisement for a book.  Its title
|is "...by his own hand upon papyrus" and the following are
|some points that it addresses:
|
|    - it contains scholarly, irrefutable historical evidence
|      that Mormon founder Joseph Smith lied when he claimed
|      he translated the Book of Mormon (considered Scripture
|      by the Mormon Church) from an ancient Egyptian papyrus.
|
|    - it is tactfully written especially for Mormons.
|
|    - it contains a spectacular 24 inch foldout panel with the
|      first ever published full color photographs of the entire
|      Joseph Smith Papyri collection.

Pardon me, but the issue is not about the origin of the BoM, rather
about the Book of Abraham. I suppose that Larson will have to explain
exactly what is meant by "first ever published full color photographs
of the entire collection."  Professionally prepared photographs (in
color) of the entire collection were published in 1969 by the LDS church
in the _Improvement Era_. I remember looking at them. Frankly, it's no
big deal. Maybe Larson's photos are suppose to be a new improved process
or better color.

That is only half the story. The book largely ignores a number of
issues that have been raised by Mormons since 1972 and the book is largely
based on the anti-Mormon arguments pushed by the Tanners before 1972.
In _Review of Books on the Book of Mormon_, vol 4, 1992 there were
two detailed reviews of Larson's book that reraised a number of those
issues. IMHO it would be much better to construct a bibliography of both
sides of the issue, let everyone wade through the collection, and decide
for themselves.

As for whether it is tactfully written especially for Mormons, I
question that. I personally found much to be blantly offensive and
found a number of theological positions which he implicitely claimed
were held by Mormons (such as infallibility) out and out wrong.
Apparently Larson sent copies of the book (unsolicated) to thousands
of LDS Homes in Utah last year. I haven't heard of any mass defections.

In t.r.m Clapp posted a lengthy diatribe from the Tanners (two very
prolific professional anti-Mormons) criticizing the reviews of Larson's
book. As a Mormon who has read both sides of the debate for years, I'm
unimpressed by Larson or the Tanners, however if you simply want to
"push" anti-Mormon material for the sake of pushing anti-Mormon material,
well, Larson's book is as good as any I guess.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Violating Christian's rights
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:30:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <Jan.22.03.45.46.1993.6019@athos.rutgers.edu> max@cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
...

>The guilt of the religious right extends FAR beyond  silence
>in the face of oppression.  No anti-gay christians died here
>in Oregon during the divisive  struggle  against  the  OCA's
>measure 9.  Several gays have.


I think you are overstating your case a bit here.  Certainly there
were excesses (on both sides) in the Measure 9 fracas.  However I do
not remember anybody being killed over it.  (Admittedly I did not
follow all the news of nasty doings.)  If you have information that
somebody was actually killed for his stance on this please post a
reference.
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:32:44 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <Jan.22.03.36.19.1993.5836@athos.rutgers.edu>,
Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry) says:
>

[yeah, I know, lots deleted...the rest didn't seem related]

>   If I drop an anvil over my foot I "believe" it will fall, and I move my
>foot!  It is hard to ignore a physical sensitivity.  We also have similar
>spiritual sensitivities, with resulting sureness.  Why should that be in
>conflict with science?

Because I have no idea what these 'spiritual sensitivities' are!
You were expecting this, weren't you? I think I understand what you
mean by 'physical sensitivity,' that is, the senses. But what is this
spiritual version? ESP or somesuch? Whatever it is, I don't have it.
At least, I don't think I have it. Perhaps you could explain what
these 'spiritual sensitivities' are, that I might understand the
concept.

Martin Schulte