HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: BOCHERC@hartwick.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: On _losing_ life
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:45:02 GMT

I would be interested in reader's opinions concerning the Biblical phrase
as usually given: "he that will lose his life shall save it".

Does this necessarily mean the literal extinction of an individual's life?
Once a person is dead, there is no way forhat person to save anything.
That person is useless to others. There is a Psalm (I do not recall its
number) in which the psalmist tries to bargain with God, saying something
like "Remember, once I am gone, I can't praise You anymore."  Well, let
God take care of that, but the psalmist is right--once dead--dead and
out of the picture.

What, then, is meant by saving one's life?  Some may say that the person
may be remembered fondly by those left behind--"A Splendid Role Model!"
Perhaps in giving up life, the individual has permitted someone else to
continue living and the individual will receive public acclaim--"How
Noble!"

But, what good does this do for the dead person?  Perhaps his/her soul 
(whatever that may be) goes to heaven instead of to hell (whatever
those may be).

Why could not "lose his life" mean giving up those things that the world
acclaims--the desire for popularity, power over others, self-aggrand-
izement, all those things that the world thinks that life is "really
all about"?  For, as Jesus said, (Matt. 6:32): "...after all those
things do the gentiles seek."  Look at Jimmy Carter--he has done more
good since losing the life of a president than he may actually have
done AS president (the latter being in the eyes of some beholders, any
way).

My feeling is that we should remember the exact words of Jesus as given
in the gospel according to Matthew (16:25):  "...will lose his life 
for MY SAKE..."; then, while we are still alive, we may be useful to
others.

Thank you for your patience in reading all this.
From: baseball@catch-the-fever.scd.ucar.edu (Gregg Walters)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ACLU Now Targetting Home Schools
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:43:31 GMT
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO

I can't clarify, but I am confident that Peter has his facts straight.

I would like to comment.  Knowing that Peter holds strongly to the concept
of obedience to the authorities and the law, it seems like he would advise
(although reluctantly) that this family is obligated to submit.  But he is
clearly avoiding this issue of obligation in this scenario.  This is yet another
example of conservative double-speak.  The kind of hypocrisy that drove the
baby-boomers into what conservatives are so fond of calling "relativistic
morals."  And they are so troubled that so many people have "fallen" into
relativistic morals.  People (including myself) really do want absolute truth,
but the disagreement on what that is substantiates a degree of relativism.

People will choose alternatives when they feel overwhelmed or oppressed
by excesses.  This, I believe, is why the the nation's middle has historically
swung from liberal to conservative and back again, over and over.  I'm glad
that the structure of our society allows these transitions with a minimum
of the violence that tears apart other societies.

You see, I'm afraid that way out there in the extreme right, behind a
cloak of smooth talking seeming godliness, is a terrifying hidden agenda.
A goal of guaranteed safety, which is impossible in a free society.
Call me paranoid.  Call me liberal.  Flame me by post or E-mail.  I
don't care.  I feel that as a responsible Christian I need to challenge
all beliefs, not only to refresh my point of view, but to guard against
seemingly well-meaning but misleading ideas.

Back to the case in point.

Given the family's confidence in home schooling, why are they afraid
of letting their daughter accept the invitation to the hearing?  Don't
they trust her?  When will they trust her home taught abilities to deal
with the world?

I feel sorry for the girl.  It sounds like this affair will disrupt
her education, wherever it continues.  I hope that her faith is strong
enough to survive the challenges her family will be facing.

Peace,
Gregg

Deacon & Financial Secretary
Valley Heights Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Thornton, CO
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:41:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <Jan.22.03.38.33.1993.5884@athos.rutgers.edu> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>In article <Jan.19.01.02.48.1993.2247@farside.rutgers.edu> chuck@cygnus.eid.anl.gov (Charles Cilek) writes:
>
>>The Handmaid's Tale is the story of the Republic of Giliad
>>as seen through the eyes of one of the handmaids.  I would 
>>recommend it, at least to see why some people are freightnened
>>of the rise of right wing fundamentalism.
>
>The point I would like to contribute to this thread is that this 
>portrayal is not accurate.  The values that many believers are
>upholding and getting politically involved for are ones that prior
>to the sixties were common place.  [...]

Or were portrayed as such by the media. Doesn't mean that that's
how people actually lived, now, is it?

My paternal grandmother had three husbands, two divorces. Her 
third husband was the ex-husband of the woman her second husband
left her to shack up with (they did eventually marry). In other
words, these two couples effectively swapped spouses.

My maternal grandmother abandoned my mother & her two sisters
after their father died. 

My uncle regularily beat up his sons. We all knew...but nobody did
anything.

My father is an alocoholic.

Another uncle sent $300/month to the PTL club for over 3 years, but
didn't have money for his wife to go to a movie or, somtimes, to buy
groceries. Things did improve after he got a job (and before he moved
in with his lover).

In my parent's generation of my family, 12 people have had 11 divorces.

In MY generation of my family, 16 people have had 1 divorce. 4 of my
cousins have been married longer than either of their parents EVER were.

My point? 

That human nature is _human_ nature. The US is a little more likely to
face up to the reality of how people live now, instead of pretending 
it's all like Leave It To Beaver. 

But I truely doubt that things have changed all that much...except that
people are a little less likely to _PRETEND_ that everything's okay. 

IE, when my cousin's husband broke her arm, she didn't "put a good face
on it"...she divorced him. When my another cousin had an abortion, she
didn't lie about it (unlike her mother and another aunt had). When I
stopped believing in christianity, I just quit going to church...instead
of pretending to be what I wasn't.

Same stuff...just less lying.

-jen
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Robert Conquest's _The Great Terror_
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:04:36 GMT
Organization: ucsd

In article <9301191920@zuma.UUCP> sera@zuma.UUCP (Serdar Argic) writes:

> From their absolute
> conviction, taught by the Greek Orthodox Church, that the Jews were
> condemned by God for rejecting his Word and for the Unforgivable Crime
> of killing Jesus Christ, it was logical to conclude that the Jews ought to
> be punished by God's new chosen people, the Christians, by being subjected
> to various restrictions.>>

Something has always confused me.  The Jews are blamed for killing Jesus,
but in the NT the Romans tried Jesus and carried out the sentence.  
Even if the Jews did kill Jesus, or had a hand in it, it is paramount
in Christian theology that it was the mission of Jesus to die on the
cross.  If the Jews were instrumental in the death of Jesus, one would
think that Christians would praise the Jews for acting in concert with
prophecy and playing an integral role in the birth of Christianity.
Since Christians believe that Jesus was God anyway, murdering Him was
of null effect anyway, and so why all the fuss?  He just came back to
life anyway, no problem.  If one accepts Christian theology, it seems
terribly inconsistent to be branding anyone a "Christ-killer", and
then harming them, negating the possibility that they might convert.

-rabjab    

[As far as I know, all major branches of Christianity reject the
accusation of "Christ-killer".  Most Christian meditations on the
crucifixion put ourselves in the place of those who killed Christ.  He
died because of *our* sins.  We don't truly understand our own sinful
nature unless we understand that we would have shouted "Crucify!" as
well.  So the crowd spoke not for Jews, but for humanity as a whole,
but particularly for *us*.  --clh]
From: jlong@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu (John Long)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Meat and the Bible
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:41:24 GMT
Organization: Purgatory Embassy

In article <CINDY.93Jan19203123@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

>"Meat" used to mean the same as "food" does in Modern English.  (This
>is reflected in the fact that in Norwegian, which is more or less a
>cousin to English, the word for "food" is "mat".)  The person who
>quoted the passages from Genesis was apparently using an older or
>old-fashioned translation of the Bible, since otherwise getting meat
>from trees doesn't make much sense! 8-)

Now that we know that "meat" == "food" [as far as the KJV Bible goes]
What does the KJV Bible say about eating *animals*?

And don't nobody gimme none of that "Thou shalt not kill" b.s. either, 
because we know that in *that* case "kill" == "murder" (whatever "murder"
is supposed to mean...). Shucks, how can we have hangings, and wars, and
cheeseburgers, and all that other good stuff.

Can a Christian eat meat? (I mean *flesh*, baby, bloody, carnal, *flesh*)

-longjohn
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:56:55 GMT

Mr. Neilsen seems skpetical of my references (via Lewis) to the belief in
the Middle Ages in a round Earth.

As far as "common knowledge" is concerned, one is hard-pressed to find an
expression of the same.  However, anyone with any education had read
Ptolemy and he was the authority accepted by all.

If "sailing off the edge" is being brought up with respect to Columbus, this
is a total fabrication of America's number one purveyor of misinformation,
Washington Irving.  Read _The Invention of the Flat Earth_ by Jeffery Burton
Russell for more details on that.  The real reason nobody wanted to back
Columbus was that everybody knew his theory on how long the voyage would
take was wrong-- and they were all correct.  Columbus was lucky that the
continent was there, and was in fact rather pig-headed about realizing where
he actually was.  You may well be able to verify this information by
consulting your city newspaper for its columbus day articles.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: guenther@ira.uka.de (Guenther Schreiner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Morning Star Prophetic Bulletin
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:18:04 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG

Hi,

 Paul Hudson Jr wrote something about the "Morning Star Prophetic Bulletin".
 Does anyone has some informations about this newsletter ?

Regards,
 Guenther

--
 Guenther Schreiner                     | University of Karlsruhe, Germany
  c/o Fakultaet fuer Informatik      ---+---
  Am Fasanengarten 5                    | Phone:    (+49) 721 608-3980
  7500 Karlsruhe 1                      | FAX:      (+49) 721 699284
                                        | INTERNET: guenther@ira.uka.de
 X.400: G=Guenther/S=Schreiner/OU=Informatik/PRMD=UNI-KARLSRUHE/ADMD=DBP/C=DE/;
--
From: amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wiccan?
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:33:25 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin

kw0426@shire.ac.arknet.edu writes:
>I am interested in something called "the Wiccan religion",
>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?

Looking over your post, my first question is whether your sister
described this to you in the terms you're using or whether those are
your own.

There is no one group of Wiccans, no one "white magic society."  And I
rather wonder about anyone calling themselves this, or taking students
through a "book club."  That would make me wonder about the integrity
and ethics of the group.  Although there are legitimate correspondence
courses out there, there are plenty which are not.

I won't give you the speech about how Wicca is a nature religion which
worships a Goddess, and that its practitioners believe in harming no
one, and how the whole she-bang (if you'll pardon the pun) is not
Satanism, since our moderator has covered that.  What I can do is
volunteer to tell you what I know about the group and/or what I can
find out from Circle Sanctuary's _Guide to Pagan Groups_.

If you're interested, send me email with more information.

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

-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
From: eng10205@nusunix1.nus.sg (LING SIEW WEE)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A beginner's question
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:15:31 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Rosario DSouza, J (ross@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
: Hi,
: 
: I am a relatively new Christian, and I have the following question.
: 
: Some people tell me that some parts of the Bible should be taken
: literally, and some parts should not. My question is: how does one
: discern which parts are to be taken literally and which should not?
: 
: 
: ..Ross D'Souza
: ross@cc.gatech.edu

This has to be learnt over a certain period of time. I don't think
anyone here can actually teach you simply by typing and posting to you.
You must get a bible study leader or teacher or whatever what it is
called over there. From there, he/she will teach you on a regular basis.

Wilfred Ling
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Harold Camping's "1994?" and your opion...please
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:23:51 GMT
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman

In article <Jan.26.03.13.38.1993.13858@athos.rutgers.edu>  
kim@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Mingoo Kim) writes:
> Hi. I've been a long listener of Harold Camping's "Open Forum" heard all  
across
> the US on Family Radio. And I have come to believe his study and his 
> translation of the Bible is correct. 

> What is your opion on him. Has anyone read his book "1994?" It's scary  
yet
> exciting to think the time is so near (if his studies are correct).

I feel that many Christians spend way too much time on trying to  
predicting , writing books, and reading books on when the end time is  
coming.  The world has been in the end time since Christ.  If we stopped  
trying to figure out exactly when God will come again, since no one will  
know when,  and spent more time living like it was in five minutes, then  
we , as Christians, would progress farther than we have.  
	THIS IS NOT A FLAME!!!!!!!!!  I am critising myself as much as any  
other.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan
From: pendleyiv@urvax.urich.edu (Vann Pendley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Law
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:39:21 GMT
Reply-To: pendleyiv@urvax.urich.edu
Organization: University of Richmond

This is my first post...

It seems to me that there is a problem with this whole law concept.  The law 
was/is part of a contract made between God and the Chosen or Jewish peoples. 
As a Christian, while those laws are good in nature, I/we are not a part of 
that contract but rather the contract created by the coming of Jesus.  This 
conract is centered around love, to both God and your neighbor.  The 10 
Commandments (guidelines) are important in understanding the basis for 
Christianity but do not have _direct_ bearing on the Christian andy more than
the other, ie. dietary, laws of the Jewish covenant.

Vann
PENDLEYIV@urvax.urich.edu
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Online bible
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:30:47 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.


   The Moderator says:
 > [As far as I can tell -- and we've been looking for several
 > years -- the only version that can be freely FTP'ed is the
 > King James.
 
       No, anything that is in Public Domain can be distributed.  The
On-Line Bible is currently being distributed with the 1768 KJV, the Darby
version of 1830 somthing and will soon include Young's Literal Version. 
And now that the New Revised Standard Version is out, it appears that they
can distribute the old RSV as well.  And naturally the Hebrew and Greek
can be distributed with no problem.  They could probably distribute the
Latin Vulgate as well, but since the OLB people are Protestant, they
probably aren't rushing towards doing that one.
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: *   help    *
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:19:11 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

The basic line of argument is to use historical documents to establish
the basic reliability of the gospel, the gospel to establish
authority, authority to establish miracles etc.  See Keating's
Fundamentalism (not complete title) on the difference between the
traditional (Catholic) means of establishing the validity of the
scripture and that of the fundamentalists.
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Law
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:24:43 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.


   whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:

 > I do not fell that your statment is entirly correct.  Christ on
 > many occasions refered to the ten commandments.

        Not to mention many other commandments, including some of the Oral
Torah commandments and understandings.

 > I feel He came,  in part, to clarify the law.  An example is
 > that He said that anger at someone is the same as murder, lust =
 > adultery, etc.. I am currently reading the book _Christianity is
 > Jewish_.  It has a diffrent veiw point than that we just throw away
 > the old.  Christ came to fufill, not to start religion over.

       Edith Schaeffer could almost have been part of the Messianic Jewish
movement.....
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A beginner's question
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:41:27 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <Jan.22.03.47.52.1993.6062@athos.rutgers.edu> ross@cc.gatech.edu (Rosario DSouza, J) writes:

>Hi,

>I am a relatively new Christian, and I have the following question.

>Some people tell me that some parts of the Bible should be taken
>literally, and some parts should not. My question is: how does one
>discern which parts are to be taken literally and which should not?

Well, I think that it's important to read the Bible from the point
of view of the writers.  They could only convey what was inspired
by God by how the understood the world at the time.
	The Bible is literature.  It contains many levels of meaning.
When Jesus made a blind man see, there are many levels.  The man could
have been literally blind and Jesus healed his eyes so that he could see.
The man might have been blind only in a metaphorical sense.  He just didn't
understand.  He couldn't 'see'.  Then Jesus made him 'see'.  That is
understand.
	Personally, I can relate more to the second interpretation.
And I think that it is much more important.  If you try to read the Bible
in only a literal sense, you will most likely go blind.

joel d. arandia
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God's contract with man through Jesus Christ
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:42:44 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <Jan.26.03.21.48.1993.13940@athos.rutgers.edu>, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
> Here is the simplest way to receive salvation!!
> 
> Go to God and ask for mercy for all the sins that you have committed througho
> your life.    Then ask God to take you in, via Christ, i.e. admit that Christ
> is YOUR Saviour!
> 
> From then on, all the sins that you commit should be forgiven PROVIDED you ta
> it to prayer.

Well,   a l l   your   s i n   (not sins)   i s   forgiven, past, present
and future. Remember, when Christ paid for them on the Cross, all your
sins were future. When you are saved, you are born again, to be one of Gods
children. If you sin, you are still a child, but you need to confess
your sins to God to have   c o m m u n i o n  (I hope this is the correct
word. What I mean is the spiritual communication etc. with God) with Him.

> And that simply is God contract and formula for salvation.

God's 'contract' is only dependent on Him. Compare Gen Gen 15:1-21 with 
Jer 34:18. We are saved by grace alone.

:)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@hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about Joseph
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:19:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

For those interested, the apocryphal "Psuedo-Evangil of James" (sp?)
contains a great deal of material about Joseph.  While this
document has never been considered canonical (though at least one
Orthodox poster has cited it here with great authority) it was
highly influential in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.  
Nearly every cathedral I visited had a carving or window drawn
from it.

It is from this book, I believe, that the belief that Joseph was
an old man who died while Jesus was young arose.  The story goes
that Mary had consecrated herself as a virgin to the Lord, so
her parents betrothed her to an old man (who already had children--
the later "brothers" of Jesus) who would not make sexual demands of
her.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO