HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s1159377@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (T. Furnell.  FOOEY..)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Genetic Engineering info needed.
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:18:47 GMT
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia

Hello all;

As part of a major group project for Science and Society,
our group has been given the task of researching,

	genetic engineering

Most of our group has very little knowledge in this area and
are wondering where we should start looking for information. 
(Naturally the local campus libraries will be researched.)

The main areas we are trying to cover are,

genetic engineering in		plants
				animals   &
				people

We feel that with a subject like genetic engineering there are many
issues that should be considered, and we are looking for information
along the following guidelines.

	effects on society
	moral dilemas
	history of genetics
	future potential
	genetic selection
	religious implications

We are hoping that we can gather alot of good text references, along
with peoples opinions and thought. Also we are looking for any advice
or points that people feel we should cover. ( A suggestion from a lecturer
was the plant copyright issue. )
 
As I stated most of our group has little knowledge in this area and we would 
welcome any comments.

If you feel you have an opinion that would be of value to us 
them please post a reply to me directly or to the group.

Thanks in advance.
FOOEY..
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   From:   Trevor  FOOEY..  Furnell       |   There is nothing that     |
|   Monash University College Gippsland.   |   cannot be taken from you  |
|   Churchill, Victoria, Australia.        |   by someone who wants      |
|   s1159377@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au        |   it bad enough...          |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Note that they're asking for an email response.  Most of these 
subjects would be of dubious relevance to this group.  --clh]
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Giving if your Heart
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:26:54 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:

> Here is the deal he outlined to me (with nary a word of scripture or
> anything from a church building):

Pete, your Christian life may be a little fuller if you realize that
this is not "nary a word of scripture":

> You admit to Him that you can't handle it, 

Romans 7:18-19 ...for to will is present with me; but how to perform
that which is good I find not.  For the good that I would I do not: but
the evil which I would not, that I do.

This is Paul, the author of much of the New Testament, saying he can't
handle it.

> you've screwed it up beyond
> repair 

Isaiah 64:6 ...all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags...
Romans 3:23 ...for all have sinned...
I Timothy 1:15 ...sinners; of whom I am chief.  (Paul, again)

> and you're wasted without Him. You give that useless mess of
> your life to Him - completely. 

The whole Bible speaks of him as Lord.

> It's His, now. He fixes you all up
> and gives you a brand-new start, a brand-new life.  

II Corinthians 5:17 ...a new creature; old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new.

> What you get is
> a clean slate, no cracks or chips, what He gets is ownership. He is
> Boss, you are all straightened up and happy.

Isaiah 1:18 ...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white
as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. (Jesus speaking)

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is
that loveth me...

I John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments.

II John 6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. ...

dan
From: stabosz@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God in the movies
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:40:33 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <Aug.21.00.35.10.1992.14391@athos.rutgers.edu> k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Philip G. Sells) writes:
>Greetings,
>
>Having just watched _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ again, I wondered about
>common depictions of God in films, both popular and not so popular.
>Could anyone provide some references to any analytical work that's been
>done about this?  Or perhaps we could begin a discussion here.
>-- 
>Philip Sells			Is anything too hard for the LORD?
>k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu			--Genesis 18:14

******

Andrew Greeley has a book out called God in Popular Culture which has at
least one chapter devoted to images of God in the movies.  I know he
discusses the movie "All That Jazz" at length.  The book devotes a
chapter to Stephen King's fiction, and a chapter to women's romances,
of which Greeley says every man should read two a year for an idea of
what women want in a man.  (I found that idea intriguing, and his
defense of such romances also, because I turn my nose up at them as most
critics do, and have still never read one although as a woman I'd like
to see if Greeley was on the mark in his observations).  My favorite
chapter in that book, though, deals with Madonna, whom he extols as a
positive influence on young women & as expressing a positive image of
the feminine aspects of God to the world.  He also excoriates the
Catholic Church (of which he is a priest) for their harsh treatment of
"one of their own" in the media.  Interestingly enough, the very week
I read his book, my diocesan newpaper saw fit to publish an editorial
in which they imagined Madonna meeting her Creator at her death, and
at her personal judgment being allowed to squeak by & be saved but only after
spending from the time of her death until the end of the world in
Purgatory as punishment for her grave sins against modesty and proper
Catholic womanhood.  If I had any doubts that Greeley was exaggerating
the loathing the Church expresses towards her in its media, reading
that editorial took those doubts right away.  

Rae
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:15:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

It seems to me that the Republican Party bears very close watching in
upcoming years on issues of religious freedom.  The party platform of my
state (Washington) includes a statement that people of my faith (I am
Wiccan) should not be allowed to teach in the public schools.  While
this may not be seen as directly threatening by Christians, I think they
should be very careful.  It is not a large step from denying the rights
of non-Christians to denying the rights of Christians who do not belong
to approved denominations.  The desire to exclude, to demonize, seems
very prevalent in recent US politics.  

At the moment the arguments center on whether groups like the Unitarians, 
LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. are 'really Christians'.  But do you feel 
quite safe that there's no one out there in a position to decide that 
*you* are 'not really Christian' and therefore justify denying you the 
protection of the law?

In the long run, an attack on the freedom to practice religion is just
as much a threat to Christianity as it is to other faiths.  It may not
look that way right now because the Republican Party contains a strong,
vocal Christian minority.  But once the precedent is established, it is
there for anyone to use.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: bulloj@rpi.edu ( )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: "Christian politics"??
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:31:12 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

This is a general question about politics in the United States and
Christians. I was hearing something on the radio about how 800 out of the 
2,000 delegates to the Republican National Convention were 
"Evangelical Christians". Whether or not this number is true is one thing,
but I'm sure there were much fewer "Evangelical Christians" at the Democratic
convention in July. My question is, why is it that more "Evangelical 
Christians" tend to be very right-wing Republicans? I understand the
position on the abortion issue, but is that really the only reason
to support Republicans?

Is there any information out there that would help me to understand this
phenomenon? I support the Right-to-life movement in principle and think
abortion is morally wrong, but (and this is only my opinion, molded by
what I see, read, hear, and by prayer) it seems to me that the right-wing
of the Republican party is not interested in trying to encourage
young, perhaps single mothers into keeping their children or putting 
them up for adoption. Sure, many people suggest the adoption alternative, but
the sad truth is that non-white, unhealthy babies will *not* get
adopted in general.

Why are many Evangelicals so against so-called "big government"? Doesn't the
government of any nation have a moral responsibility to care for its
widows, orphans, sick, etc... Yes, according to my interpretation of 
some of the minor prophets. Many evangelicals say it is the Church's 
business to take care of these people not the government's , but does the
government's involvement necessarily block any private, or church, involvment 
in trying to help the less fortunate? It seems to me that, in general, and
there are many exceptions, democrats are more truly concerned about the
less fortunate than republicans are. Pointing fingers and screaming  
"Socialism!" is not an acceptable reply to liberal policies, is it?

Anyway, I don't want to start or carry on an argument about politics... it's
just that with the elections coming up in our nation, it's almost
impossible not to think about it. The fact that almost all of my Christian
friends are so cutting and disparaging about my political beliefs just 
serves to amplify my confusion. In one sense I feel like I must be 
deluded because most Evangelicals are hard-core all-American right-wing 
Republicans, and I'm practically a socialist. I'm just curious about 
why this has happened in our country (a large proportion of Evangelicals
who support Republicans). Is this a common theme in other nations? What
about Germany, or England?                           

If it's not appropriate to carry on this discussion on the newsgroup, please
e-mail me if you have anythign to say. I'm very interested in hearing
other perspecitives, particularly Biblical perspectives. 

Peace,
John Bullough
bulloj@rpi.edu

[I'm going to moderate any followups pretty tightly.  I don't
want this group to turn into a politics group.  --clh]
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage to a Catholic outside a Catholic Church
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:26:33 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <Aug.31.03.41.25.1992.25914@athos.rutgers.edu>, thomasp@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl (Thomas Payerle) writes:
|> In article <Aug.26.02.02.32.1992.7623@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
|> >Can a divorced man be ordained to the priesthood?  I once heard of
|> >something like this, but don't recall where.  And does the Catholic
|> >church accept Episcopalian (sp?) priests who are married and then
|> >ordain them as Catholic priests who are married?

|> I cannot answer with certainty to your question about "divorced" priests,
|> but I have met a priest who had a wife and one or two natural children.
|> The priest had converted from Episcopalianism I think, although it may have
|> been the Anglican church from which he converted.  I believe he needed
|> special dispensation from the pope.  

|> This would lead me to believe that technically a divorced man could become
|> a priest (if a married convert from another religion  could become a
|> priest, than I would think any married man could become a priest assuming
|> he receives papal dispensation (which is unlikely).  A "divorced" man is
|> technically just a married man in the eyes of the Church, I believe, as
|> divorce is not recognized.), but this is just legal supposition.  I think
|> that there are no "divorced" priests (with living ex-wives).
|> 				Tom Payerle

As you say, this is all technically possible; but in practice the authorities
would probably consider a divorced man a bad risk as a candidate for the
priesthood.  

First, I should note that only married convert *clergy* can be considered as
candidates for the priesthood, and only if the wife becomes a Catholic too.
(It doesn't always happen, sad to say.)  

Ordaining a divorced man with children is very unlikely: the difficulties of
a divided family are enough without adding the stresses of the ministry.

And even if there are no children, the case isn't simple. For example,
whether the divorce is amicable or not, public knowledge of the situation
could cause both the priest and his ex-wife much distress.  My guess is that
a divorced man (with annulment, if he was a Christian at the time of the 
marriage) might pursue the monastic or missionary life, but not service 
as a parish priest.

---
Richard Chonak, norris@athena.mit.edu
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:24:11 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

In article <Aug.25.02.11.33.1992.18968@athos.rutgers.edu>
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens) writes:

>
>But how do we obediently complete our response in faith to accept Jesus and 
>his gift of life?  How do we allow our Lord to complete the new birth in us 
>and to fully clothe and surround us with his grace?
>
>"Whoever believes and is BAPTIZED will be saved..." - Mark 16:16
[other verses quoted]

Forgive me if I misinterpret you.  Are you saying that everyone has to be
baptized to be "born again"?  If I were to read the verses you quoted and what
you said, I would get that impression.  Being a Baptist by membership, and a
fundamentalist, I would suspect that this is how I'm to believe by definition. 
However, I don't see Scriptural support to claim that baptism is a
soteriological sacrament, i.e. becoming justified before God.  If I were to
classify it as to having meaning in the area of salvation,I'd  put it in with
sanctification.  Like circumcision, it is only a symbol.  An outward sign of
inward change. I'm not belittling it, circumcision had real significance for
the Jew.  Just so baptism for the believer.  But when we hold that salvation is
by grace alone, we can not add "plus baptism."  Circumcision does not make one
a Jew.  Baptism does not make one a Christian.  
Plenty of hairs are split on this BB, but I think this is an important point to
clarify.
-Rex
@fnal.fnal.gov
From: cw1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chi-Tai (Frank) Wu)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The O'Callaghan Case, part I
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:04:01 GMT

What has the oldest Gospel fragment been dated so far?
How about the New Testament?

Frank

[The oldest one that is generally accepted is P52, a small fragement
from John, which is generally dated 110 to 125.  It contains John
18:31-34 and 37-38.  Comfort (whose summary I'm using here) says
recent scholarship is tending to date it nearer to 100 than 125.
--clh]
From: howard@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Bonnie Howard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Fasting
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:15:20 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

Our church does a 7 day fast at the first of the year to get direction
on what God wants us to do in the church body.  We have done this for
the last 8-9 years.  The pastor allows us to choose the sort of fast
we want to do.  Some go on a total fast - just water - some liquid fast
where they do nothing but drink juices, water, etc... There are others
that will fast 1 meal or 2 meals a day or others that will fast for
1, 2, 3, or 4 days - like I said whatever they choose - it is between
them & God... One thing that most all of us have noticed is that the
second day seems to be the hardest and once past that it isn't so 
difficult.  We think it has to do with the caffeine withdrawal and the
sugar withdrawal.... Tells you something doesn't it.  If they drink
the caffeine they experience hunger and if they don't they really have
bad headaches....

As far as problems with the fasting to the body - fasting has been 
around for years and years - it really is good for the body to fast
because it cleanses out the body.  We really need to do this every so
often but with our hectic lifestyles we tend to pick up food at Micky
D's etc - you get my drift - and we don't like to punish ourselves with
denial of food...  We haven't experienced any problems in the church 
with the fasting - in fact, it is one of our best times - we draw 
closer - we are all hungry!!!!  At the end of the week, the pastor 
sets aside the sermon time for testimony time - only people who are in
the church and have attended on a regular basis get to go before the
church with what they have learned during the week of fasting.  Their
have been some MIGHTY things happened out of that week of denial.  I 
wonder what would happen if we did it more often - I believe God tells
us to draw near to Him - and if we would take more time to listen we
wouldn't get ourselves into so much trouble...

Just my .02cents worth....

bonnie
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:27:36 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

There is still the additional consideration about pain and suffering
yet to be explored, that of a world at war - spiritual, unseen war.

What (and I am serious) of the possibility raised by statements in
scripture which indicate that there was war in Heaven, that there is
now still war under way on earth itself, that thus are forces at
work perpetually attempting to influence as much evil as possible
in the closing rounds of a long but doomed campaign?

The importance of prayer in averting pain and suffering now becomes
worth thinking about; if our prayers do affect the unseen world in
powerful ways which none of us rightly understand, then maybe it is
also a matter of spiritual weakness or lack of attentiveness on our
parts that results in "holes" through which the adversary can hurl
disasters, diseases, calamities, conflicts and confusion through
various means. 

To liken it to a football game (American football, that is; apologies
go out to those who play or follow real football :-)), when the
linemen miss their blocks, not only do they themselves get knocked on
their keesters, but so do the guys in the rear such as the quarterback
or the running back. Another possibility to consider (and I think Job's
"buddies" did a great job of running him down about being negligent
before God as an explanation for what happened to him) is that we are
spiritually speaking very ignorant beings, much like chimpanzees would
be in the middle of a modern battlefield: able only to comprehend that
many horrible, loud and devastating things were going on all around them,
but unable to do much about it all one way or another.

If this is a worthy idea, then, unlike the hapless chimpanzees in the 
example just given, we as men are given power in Christ Jesus to affect
the unseen realm while the battles still rage, and such battles must
rage until the very end.

I know that might sound as though the grieving mother who has lost a 
child is in some way responsible; GOD FORBID! That is not what I mean.
I simply wonder if in the heavenlies there are forces at work which
people little understand, that the angels of God are quite busy with
many critical tasks and struggles. Frank Peretti's first two novels
raise this idea quite well.

In the book of Daniel, the angel who appears before him mentions that
he was obstructed for a time by the Prince of Persia - even though
Daniel's prayers were heard long before.

Any other thoughts? Perhaps it helps us understand.

							Pete
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:43:25 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <Aug.31.03.33.22.1992.25874@athos.rutgers.edu> OFM (Chuck Hedrick) comments:
>Perhaps a better example would
>be Mary as mother of God.  I think the phrase "Mary mother of
>God" should be seen as intentionally provocative.  There was a
>dispute, and the Church chose to deal with it be asserting its
>view in the most aggressive possible way.

Frankly, I don't think Catholics who use the phrase "Mother of God"
to describe Mary have provocation on their mind.  It's religious
jargon, and perfectly comprehensible in its context, which is not
at all an ecumenical one.  In fact, isn't "Mater Dei" a very old
title for Mary?

Perhaps you might have been discussing "provocation" way back then, but
that noun smacks a bit of post-Reformation polarization.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

[I was thinking of the time when the phrase was initially coined,
which was long before the Reformation, against quite different
enemies.  --clh]
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Fasting
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:23:09 GMT

chawdry@orange.cis.ohio-state.edu (rehan nisar chawdry) writes:
> You need to be careful when fasting, however expert supervision is
> not necessary.  Slowdown in activity is common, but fasting cleanses
> the body physically as well as mentally.  Muslims fast one month a year
> from sunrise to sunset -- in the summer months for 18 hours a day with no
> food nor liquid.

My experiences with fasting (and the context in which I made my warning 
posting) involved continuous fasts of 48 hours or more.  An 18 hour/day fast 
will probably give you a mild case of low blood sugar for the first couple of 
days, until your body adjusts, but is otherwise harmless for anyone in 
reasonably good health.  If you're looking for an exercise in discipline, 
this isn't a bad approach--under 24 hours should be quite safe.  I 
occasionally go 24 hours without solid food as a simple result of not getting 
around to it :).

However, going more than 24-36 hours without anything but water or clear 
liquids *does* cause significant changes in body chemistry as the body shifts 
its metabolism into 'starvation mode', and over 48 seems to produce 
noticeable changes in consciousness (which, in some cases, is part of the 
point of the exercise).  If you are healthy and have good nutrition, you can 
go up to a week or so without food without any long term ill effects, but I 
reiterate that you should *never* do so without supervision.  A fast of 
several days will cause subjective mental effects of the same order as 
psychotropic drugs, combined with reduced endurance.  Not something to play 
with.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
From: Razmic@corona.chem.yale.edu (Razmic Gregorian)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: christian scouts
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:59:04 GMT
Organization: Yale University Department of Chemistry

>I know that some U.S. churches have their own more religious version
>of "scouts". Is anyone here involved in these programs? How does your
>program differ from the Boy Scouts of America (or the Girl Scouts?).
>Is your program centralized or is each troop independent? Would you
>take outside funding if it was available?

Yes, actually, the Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Reformed) in this
country has organizations with names like "The Calvinettes"
(girlscouts) and something like United Calvinist Youth.  They are
simply Dutch Reformed scout troups--in spite of what might be
considered hoaky names.